Voice 07: the verdict

Ok, so live blogging proved a bit ambitious, but here’s a bit of the lowdown on what went on at Voice 07, the social enterprise conference.

The night before the main event there was a drinks reception, with a bit of light networking and (for some) heavy drinking….and good to see lots of enthusiastic people ready for the next day.

The opening session of the main event was started by the chair of Social Enterprise Coalition (Baroness Thornton), who then passed on to the chief exec of the NWDA (the regional development agency, who helped fund the event)….The next two speakers were Ed Miliband and Tim Smit (of the Eden Project), which made for an interesting contrast…

The Minister concentrated on the “kind of people who work in social enterprise…and their can-do spirit”, their “entrepreneurial spirit…with values”. And it was good to hear that people-centred focus. He also made the (more political) point that the public services agenda was not about an abdication of responsibility, but enabling new approaches, and about “reshaping services around the user”.

He was also honest about the social enterprise action plan not being the complete answer (“there is further to go”) and made a clear plea for the sector to lobby on tax incentives……before moving on to outline his vision of government’s role as catalyst, customer and champion (the latter he connected specifically to the new ambassadors called for in the plan, who he termed “evangelists”).

The main gauntlets thrown down were around impact and the need for hard evidence, and around voice. There seemed to be an widening of the remit here to listen to diverse and different groups of voices. Perhaps this is connected to his final point, which I strongly agree with, that this is a movement, “not just a sector”. [See here for what was announced / Cabinet Office press release]

Tim Smit did his thing, which was pretty entertaining, and not a little inspiring. He started off by calling for utility companies and railway companies to be social enterprises, and followed that swiftly by saying that private companies did have lessons for us, but also many things to avoid. As an entrepreneur, he talked of innovation coming from “the confidence to trust your own instincts”, about attitude combined with values, and the need for the movement to be more bullish about its potential. Yes, yes and thrice yes to those.

He trampled over the definition debates (“there is no definition of social enterprise” closely followed by “you’re all in love with hippy shit”) before talking of the need to slow down and spend time thinking deeply about “new rules of engagement”. Clearly he could have gone on more and more, but finished by talking about the fact that “innovation can’t be judged” (there’s nothing to judge it against), and the natural authority of people that are born to lead….all good stuff, and a good challenge to the stuffiness and stuck-in-the-detail of what sometimes happens at these events (in which I include myself).

===========================================
Tim and Ed were followed by Liam Black introducing four potential entrepreneurs, including SSE Fellow Nathalie McDermott. All four were pitching direct to the audience (and well done all, because that’s a pretty large crowd) for our “five pound vouchers”….or monopoly money as Oliver Letwin later dismissively described it.

– Nathalie’s project was i-citizen: a kind of “OurSpace” for citizen journalism online, encouraging ALL groups to use technology to their own ends.

– Next up was Andrzej, whose Primus Personnel organisation was working to act as a bridge between skilled migrant workers and potential employers, as well as giving migrant workers advice and support through the process.

– Jennifer Inglis was third with If-Food, which was about local sourcing + local food networks (combined with online ordering?)…

– And finally, there was Puppet Ship which was, as the name would suggest, a proposal for a puppet theatre on a ship: a floating arts venue that would also go out on outreach projects.

the winner was Primus Personnel, which I think (all SSE loyalties aside) was a worthy winner. Best of luck to all four on the entrepreneurial journey ahead; and well done to the Coalition for introducing this practitioner-focused part of proceedings…

===============================
The break-out session I went to was about Communities in Control, which was pretty interesting: case studies from West Kilbride and Durham, and more overview stuff from the Plunkett Foundation CEO James Money-Kyrle, and Barry Quirk (from Lewisham local authority) who is overseeing the review of asset transfer of public assets.

The Plunkett Foundation is now thinking of itself as a “rural community change agent”, and emphasised that the thing that connected all their activities (across retail outlets, labelling etc) was the people. to quote directly, “the people are the assets” not just bricks and mortar. We made a similar point in our response to the Comprehensive Spending Review that a sustainable resource base has to include human resources….

I was impressed with Barry Quirk as well, particularly when he spoke about the need for recipes rather than blueprints, for things emerging from communities, on facilities being a means to an end, and on the need for community empowerment. Inevitably, as someone overseeing a government review, Barry got most of the questions in the discussion, which covered how to pitch to a local authority, avoiding being transferred a liability, and on getting payback for everyone from the investment.

=========================
In the mid-event plenary, we had Jonathan Bland chairing Oliver Letwin and Rita Patel from the Peepul Centre in Leicester. Two more different speakers it would be difficult to imagine. Oliver Letwin referred to social enterprise being driven by the “huge efforts of people”, but focused on the need for investment….and the availability of capital as a barrier. His three “great lines of thought” (!) were 1) investment vehicles for a different scale of private (and public?) money to be available; 2) a helping hand and a champion; and 3) relieving the constraints of regulation. Which is all fine, if nothing really new or concrete perhaps.

Rita Patel basically told her own inspiring story as a social entrepreneur, and it’s quite a story. There were some great quotes (“we called it community action; the government called it riots”) and pearls of wisdom (“understand the system you’re dealing with”; “remain determined and focused”)…an amazing woman, and an amazing achievement. One thing that stayed with me was the need for champions and networks which can open up doors that had previously been closed. She also made the important point in the short discussion that “you can’t start an entrepreneurial organisation on risk-averse funding”….

One other thing that made me think was when she exhorted the crowd to believe in their potential and ability to change things (“you all have passion” as practitioners and social entrepreneurs). But actually, most of the room was filled with second and third tier organisations and agencies. Obviously, I confess to adding to that number, but it just made me wish she was speaking to a room full of social entrepreneurs and leaders who would have really identified with her story, and channelled the lessons and inspiration into their work.

========================
At this point, a confession about leaving early/missing the last workshop occurs; my defence is a meeting with our Fife SSE representatives, and the need to prepare for the next day for our new Liverpool SSE. But there were some announcements in the final session that made it to my inbox, and which can be found on various websites. [see the government link again]

The main one that people picked up was Ivan Lewis announcing £73m for developing and supporting health and care social enterprises. There was also £200k for investigations in how to get more private money into the movement (entrusted to Charity Bank and Community Innovation UK), and some progress in the DTi and DfES….

Congrats to SEC for organising: seemed to go without a hitch to me, and the event is always worthwhile, not only for the networking and refreshing of relationships, but for what is sparked off from different conversations and presentations….

The thing that stood out for me was how many speakers emphasised that this is a people-centred, people-powered movement….but much of the focus is on finance and structures and curricula. That is surely the next challenge for the movement in the coming years: to find, encourage, develop and train the individuals who will found, lead and populate the social enterprises of the 21st century.

Share Button

Altruism hardwired in the brain?

Reading about how a certain part of the brain is more active in those who are altruistic sparked off a range of responses and ideas….but Nick Booth over at Podnosh has covered this much better than I could, going into the research a little more, and extrapolating outwards what this might mean for non-profit use of technology:

“…Flip it the other way and you make the case that those with the most
sophisticated understanding of social situations are more likely to do
things for others because it is most likely to make sense to them. They
have mental tools better attuned for empathy, for relating to others,
for calculating knock on consequencs of acts of generosity. So what is
my point re the social web?

These are the people with
the most sophisticted and complex (dare I say evolved?) ways to
understand and act in the social world. These are also the people which
you should find in a greater proportion in charities and non-profit
organisations. Yes you’ve guessed it: these are the folk who should
find it easiest to grasp the social web.”

Interesting stuff: do those who work in this sector have a heightened sense of empathy, which leads them to be involved in this world? Is this more complex/’better’ than others, or just a particular area of strength? Is there an altruistic brain spectrum along which we could plot people we know and work with and support? Certainly the connection between “seeing other people’s actions as meaningful” and “being altruistic” is an replique montre interesting one which other researchers could pursue and drill down on.

What would neurologists make of social entrepreneurs I wonder? Maybe we should stop with the refined interview process focusing on traits and characteristics and just get a MRI brain scan to see what potential lies in store…….or maybe not….

Share Button

Monday round-up: ethics, business and Davos

Few things to round-up this morning:

– The British Library’s Business and IP Centre is hosting an event this evening entitled "Ethical Entrepreneurs", featuring John Bird (who featured in the Sunday papers commenting on Ruth Turner) and  one of the Innocent founders Richard Reed amongst others; will be webcast at a future date

Xigi.net (pronounced Ziggy, and which is kind of mapping the social investment world online) points to a Business Week article called Beyond the Green Corporation, which has nothing really new ("Imagine a world in which eco-friendly and socially
responsible practices actually help a company’s bottom line. It’s
closer than you think"…er, yes) but good detail on the responses and actions of  the corporate and investment worlds

– Jim Fruchterman (of Benetech fame) is going to Davos….on behalf of social entrepreneurs everywhere

– Another blockbuster social entrepreneur, Victoria Hale of One World Health, is interviewed for 15 minutes on the Global Envision site; if you want to know more about pharmaceuticals, ethics and drug development, this is a good read (originally in Stanford Social Innovation Review)

– A new guide from has just been launched to provide practical guidance to
those wanting to take a Social Firm out of a council or NHS Trust; see the press release on Social Firms UK

– And, last but by no means least, it is Voice 07 on Wednesday in Manchester: we hope to be blogging from there on the day….

Share Button

Is i-genius the networking site social entrepreneurs have been waiting for?

There’s been plenty of talk in social entrepreneurship circles about use of new technology and, specifically, web 2.0 type social networking stuff. Why? Well, as is often repeated to be the case, social entrepreneurs (indeed, all entrepreneurs) thrive on networks of support, resources and opportunity. So, in the manner of a screenwriter pitching a bad film concept, the idea of a "MySpace for social entrepreneurs" has been bandied around a fair bit (OurSpace? ThinkedIn? etc.)

Now, in principle, I like this idea, and it makes sense to me. We use an online extranet with various networking features to connect our SSE Fellows with (to be honest) differing degrees of success…but it has value. So I was interested to get an e-mail from i-genius (to my old GlobalIdeasBank job address) asking me to link to it…which I guess I’ve just done.

I went to check it out, and registered to have a proper look around. Seems ok and fairly intuitive, and the kind of features you would expect. Also has an impressive list of partners at the bottom. But (isn’t there always a but)….do we need it? David Wilcox has written about this today, and I’m inclined to agree with some if not all of what he says, which is not hugely complimentary…:

"So far I can’t see how igenius does anything you can’t get from Linked in, or ecademy, or many of the other social networking sites"

"The igenius site has worthy logos along the bottom: Unesco, British Council, Ashoka, African Foundation for Development, Make Your Mark: Start Talking Ideas. No quotes from any of them, though in an email from Kim they are described as funders and partners.

I think about whether I want to be part of a network of people calling
themselves igeniuses. I don’t. I go to my profile page to de-register,
but can’t find how to. I have to write to the editor.

Perhaps I’m being cynical and unfair in my comments on igenius. If
so, I’m sorry … but the way it currently presents made me cross and
suspicious.  Igenius may be a totally worthy effort, launched in a
rush, with lots more features and clarification to come."

Whatver you think about the detail of the site (which is true: it’s light on detail of who’s funding it, who’s editing and maintaining it, their motivations etc….), the bit that stood out for me from this was that it’s not doing anything that LinkedIn or other social networking sites could do for a social entrepreneur. Indeed, social entrepreneurs work across all sectors, so would they want to be siloed on their own site? And there are no real resources of value as yet…or many entrepreneur members (most seem, like myself, to come from second-tier agencies….)….obviously, some of this could be to do with the early stages, but I can’t help feeling that it’s more than this.

I was speaking to someone about another site I was involved in with an online community of 8000+ members, and we talked about this web 2.0 technology and that one, but both agreed that it was NEVER the case of simply putting the technology up and letting it happen: the important parts were "socialising" the site, interacting, engaging, involving, being open and so on; things that it is is not always easy to get right. This may be as unfair (or not) as David’s write-up, and I may well be proved wrong as it develops in the coming months, but i-genius feels a little bit too much like it wants to be closed, elitist and exclusive….and that’s not the kind of network that appeals to many working in this  movement.

 

Share Button

Saving the world one species at a time

SlenderlorisI’m renowned at SSE as not being a great animal lover (due to being allergic to most of them), but an e-mail from a friend prompted me to look at a new website about species which are "evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered" (EDGE). It’s called Edge Of Existence, and is a project of the Zoological Society of London, aiming to conserve these species by implementing the necessary research and conservation actions.

In a stroke of fundraising genius, you can choose to support in a variety of ways…but most will surely choose to support specific actions to help a particular species. My donation went to the uber-cute Slender Loris.

It’s a fantastic site, albeit in the early stages, and an extraordinarily effective way of getting important research funded. Not only in the linking to specific animals, but also detailing exactly where this goes and why it is important. Obvious fundraising steps, but executed superbly, and with good and appropriate use of new technology to both invite questions and promote interaction and engagement.

[thanks to Fev for the link]

Share Button