Transcript FBE Panel Event

Greater Manchester: Social Enterprises
Angeliki Stogia
Social Enterprise Lead at New Economy
Today we will cover
• Key challenges in Greater Manchester (GM)
• GM Social Enterprise research: key findings
Mini break
• Social Innovation Driver tendering opportunity
Impact of financial downturn
• The recession had a significant impact in GM:
• Increased unemployment
• Increased demand for public services
• Yet there remains significant problems from pre-recession:
•
•
•
•
•
Economic inactivity
Poverty
Skills gap
Poor health
Lack of joined-up services
The Greater Manchester Strategy
GM – currently a cost centre for UK - £22bn public spending Vs
£17bn tax generated – ambition to close then reverse gap.
Long-term economic growth and ensuring residents able to
contribute to and benefit from growth are critical.
“By 2020, the Manchester city region will have pioneered a
new model for sustainable economic growth based around a
more connected, talented and greener city region where all
our residents are able to contribute to and benefit from
sustained prosperity”
The new economic reality
Researching Social Innovation
• Particular focus on social enterprise
• What is the scale and nature of opportunity to deliver GMS?
• What are the resources to realise opportunity?
• What has been achieved elsewhere and transferrable
experience
• Supporting PSR
• Scale and ambition
How can we maximise the contribution of social enterprises and
social entrepreneurs to delivering the GMS?
Definition: social enterprises supported must
• Have explicit social aims and ethical values
• Principally re-invest in the business/community rather than
distributed to owners/shareholders
• Be enterprise oriented
• Have social ownership
• Be accountable to their stakeholders and the wider
community for their social/enviro/economic impact
• Be subject to an 'asset lock'
Community enterprise
Serving a
particular
geographical
community or
community of
interest
Social Firms
Integrating
people who
might
otherwise find
it difficult in
the
mainstream
job market
Co-operatives
Organisation
owned,
controlled, and
run for the
benefit of their
members
Public sector spin-outs
Independent
social
enterprises set
up to deliver
services that
were
previously
provided by
public sector
organisations
Trading arms of charities
Enterprise
started by
charity or nonprofit that
generates
revenue for
the
organisation
Business with social mission
Provides
products/
services for
community
good
Business with social objectives
Hires
marginalized
people in good
employment
opportunities
Business with social objectives
Businesses
with social
objectives as
central as their
economic
objectives
Business with social objectives
Businesses
with social
objectives as
central as their
economic
objectives
Methodology
• Literature review
• Social enterprises in GM
•
•
•
•
Telephone surveys
Face to face interviews
Social investors survey
Review of infrastructure support
• Financial analysis of social enterprises in GM
• Social investor surveys
• Data sample analysis
• Support model analysis
• Best practice nationally and internationally
• Site visits, interviews, 1-2-1s
Emerging GM profile (literature review)
•
•
•
•
Employs 23 FTEs
Heavily reliant upon volunteers for day-to-day activities
Half turnover more than £100,000 per year
Earns 75%+ income through trade (with consumers, public
agencies, other businesses and other social enterprises in
that order) – in a large minority of cases topping this up with
grants and donations
• Led by a management/governance team that reflects
location in which the enterprise is based and provides
products that meet specific local needs
• Makes efforts to measure social impact
Social Enterprise survey: SWOT
Flexibility to innovate, supportive local links, skilled and
committed staff, SMT and directors
S
T
W
Lack or resource/ capability, firefight Vs plan
development, low profile of networks and clients
O
Expanding to cover new areas, new client base,
geographical coverage, work more with private sector
Funding cuts, competition (socent/private sector)
Social Investors Survey
• Number and range of investment funds is increasing rapidly
• Variety of investments on offer (grants, loans, equity or
quasi-equity)
• Gap in relation to the provision of unsecured loans below
£50,000
• Vast majority (90%) of lending in form of secured loans
• Investor activity in GM appears to average 10-20
investments per year
• Limited evidence available on the demand for investment
Existing social enterprise ecosystem
• Multitude of initiatives/actors at national, regional, GM level
• Varying issues to address, places to get support
•
•
•
•
•
National bodies/initiatives/organisations, regional, GM and local
Growing number of stakeholders interested in the agenda
Tried tested approaches: e.g. workspaces, hosted startups
Traditional business support services, VCS, Universities, RPs
Consultancies, legal firms, accountancies, feelancers etc
Social enterprise support in GM:
fragmented, patchy, unfocused, generic, bog standard, ignorant
GMCVO social enterprise business support focus group
Key findings
• Social enterprise comes in different shapes, sizes and stages of
development
• Higher proportion of enterprises constituted as coops or
community benefit organisations and more CICs in GM than
elsewhere in the NW
• Majority of social enterprises very much smaller than headline
figures usually quoted would suggest
• Excluding larger social enterprises the first decade of life appears
to be a key barrier to get through for smaller social enterprises
• Excluding larger social enterprises, median income in GM is only
one third of the £50K average for the NW with accumulation of
fewer assets
Implications for GMS delivery
• Lack of an overall picture of capacity/capability of social
enterprises
• Lack of understanding and strategic direction
• Duplication of effort, overlap of activity
• Limited opportunity for collaboration
• Fragmentation
Examples of support
The opportunity: Social Innovation Driver
Coordinated support for social enterprise in GM
• Scale the impact of social enterprise in GM
• Develop an offer for social enterprise business support in GM
• Enhance capacity of social enterprises to develop innovative solutions
• Coordinate, collaborate, advocate
SID: Inclusive social enterprise support partnership that will be
financially self sustaining
• Coordinate and enhance the quality of business support
• Support high quality learning that meets the needs of social
enterprises/entrepreneurs
• Leverage structured support and infrastructure creating real
opportunity
Caveats….
• European Commission sign off the EU programme
• Delays starting the programme
• Different managing bodies (DWP/DCLG)
• Must be tendered separately (ERDF and ESF elements)
• Capacity to process the Invitations to Tender
• Delays on the tendering timetable
Stakeholders engaged
Stakeholders engaged
SID activity (ERDF)
• £1m ERDF in GM*
• Provision of advice and specialist support services to social
enterprises in GM
• Business support specific to the needs of social enterprises
• Supporting social enterprises to measure and evidence impact
of innovative solutions
• Support in contract, procurement and investment readiness,
prototyping and support in accessing social investment
• Clusters for smaller social enterprises
SID activity (ESF)
• £2m ESF in GM*
• Learning and training opportunities that improve the skills and
productivity of the social enterprise workforce
• Leadership and management training and activity to encourage new
social entrepreneurs
• Funding to support social enterprise volunteers through ILMs and
accredited or non-accredited training
• Mentoring, peer support, support for value based partnerships and
coaching
• Promoting social enterprise and raising its profile in GM
* Applicants need to provide their own match funding for the activity.
Match must be identified and secured before European funding is
awarded
Outputs
ERDF
Intermediate and intensive business support
Social enterprises signposted to existing provision
Social enterprises engaged with
ESF
Participants engaged with*
Unemployed
Economically Inactive
Young People 15-25
Employed
* participants can fall in more than one category
50
200
400
1000
400
400
300
200
Indicative Timetable
• Informal agreement of
the OP likely in February
• OP programme sign off
June 2015 (earliest)
• Theoretically can launch
calls in March and agree
projects, at risk
• Contracts formally issued
after formal adoption of
the OPs
Launch of Call
Stage 1 from submission
Confirmation of Stage 1 outcome
Stage 2 applications invited
Stage 2 submissions
Confirmation of Stage 2
Activity can commence
Project activity end date
Questions..
• Further ideas to tackle the challenge?
• Missing out any key activity?
• How can you engage with the social innovation driver?
Thank you!
www.neweconomymanchester.com
@neweconomymcr