Finding Australia's social enterprise sector : final report

The forms social enterprises can take and the industries they operate in are so many and various that it has always been a challenge to define, find and count social enterprises. In 2009 Social Traders partnered with the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (ACPNS) at Queensland University of Technology to define social enterprise and, for the first time in Australia, to identify and map the social enterprise sector: its scope, its variety of forms, its reasons for trading, its financial dimensions, and the individuals and communities social enterprises aim to benefit.

Competitive advantages as a foundation for social advantage: The role of social enterprise in regional development

The belief that regions play a role in determining national economic development and that advantages are found at the local and regional level has been the focus of economic geography and development studies over the last 10 years. However, this issue has historically been dominated by economic perspectives, industrial firms, and public bodies. In recent years the social economy is starting to receive greater attention in creating regional advantage as well as ameliorating regional disadvantage. The social economy includes the impact of the third sector such as social enterprises. This paper proposes that understanding the role and function of social enterprise will enable a more nuanced understanding of the socio-economic aspects of regional development. Drawing upon Oliver’s (1997) framework for sustainable competitive advantage it is argued that this established management framework provides a valuable foundation for examining the organisational resources that social enterprise need to operate effectively, as well as the socio-economic resources they produce for regional communities.

Pathways to employment for migrants and refugees? The case of social enterprise

This paper examines the use of social enterprise – that is, not for personal profit businesses that have a strong social purpose- to support training and employment pathways for migrants and refugees facing multiple forms of exclusion. Drawing on an evaluation of a program that supports seven social enterprises in the Australian state of Victoria, the study finds that social enterprise affords unique local opportunities for economic and social participation for the program’s participants. Nevertheless, there are limits to the impacts of programs that mediate transitions within an increasingly flexible labour market without redressing the broader social determinants of labour market segmentation.

Juggling competing public values : resolving conflicting agendas in social procurement in Queensland

Organisations within the not-for-profit sector provide services to individuals and groups government and for-profit organisations cannot or will not consider. This response by the not-for-profit sector to market failure and government failure is a well understood contribution to society by the nonprofit sector. Over time, this response has resulted in the development of a vibrant and rich agglomeration of services and programs that operate under a myriad of philosophical stances, service orientations, client groupings and operational capacities. In Australia, these organisations and services provide social support and service assistance to many people in the community; often targeting their assistance to clients facing the most difficult of clients with complex problems. Initially, in undertaking this role, the not-for-profit sector received limited sponsorship from government, relying on primarily on public donations to fund the delivery of services. (Lyons 2001). Over time governments assumed greater responsibility in the form of service grants to particular groups: ‘the worthy poor’. More recently, government has engaged in widespread procurement of services from the not-for-profit sector, which specify the nature of the outcomes to be achieved and, to a degree, the way in which the services will be provided. A consequence of this growing shift to a more marketised model of service contracting, often offered-up under the label of enhanced collaborative practice, has been increased competitiveness between agencies that had previously worked well together (Keast and Brown, 2006). One of the challenges which emerge from the procurement of services by government from third sector organisations is that public values such as effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and professionalism can be neglected (Jørgensen and Bozeman 2002), although this is not always the case (Brown, Furneaux and Gudmundsson 2012). While some approaches to the examination of social procurement - the intentional purchasing of social outcomes (Furneaux and Barraket 2011) - assumes that public values are lost in social procurement arrangements (Bozeman 2002; Jørgensen and Bozeman 2002), alternative approach suggest such inevitability is not the case. Instead, social procurement is seen to involve a set of tensions (Brown, Potoski and Slyke 2006) or a set of trade offs (Charles et al. 2007), which must be managed, and through such management, public values can be potentially safeguarded (Bruin and Dicke 2006). The potential trade-offs of public values in social procurement is an area in need of further research, and one which carries both theoretical and practical significance. Additionally, the juxtaposition of policies – horizontal integration and vertical efficiency – results in a complex, crowded and contested policy and practice environment (Keast et al., 2007),, with the potential for set of unintentional consequences arising from these arrangements. Further the involvement of for-profit, non-profit, and hybrid organisations such as social enterprises, adds further complexity in the number of different organisational forms engaged in service delivery on behalf of government. To address this issue, this paper uses information gleaned from a state-wide survey of not-for-profit organisations in Queensland, Australia which included within its focus organisational size, operational scope, funding arrangements and governance/management approaches. Supplementing this information is qualitative data derived from 17 focus groups and 120 interviews conducted over ten years of study of this sector. The findings contribute to greater understanding of the practice and theory of the future provision of social services.

Social enterprise and regional development : a pilot study

This preliminary study is an early attempt to explicitly explore the role of social enterprises in regional development. Focusing on North West Tasmania, an isolated and predominately rural region, this study examines three social enterprises based in the region and the nature of their social and economic impacts.

Social innovation and social enterprise : evidence from Australia

‘Social innovation’ is a construct increasingly used to explain the practices, processes and actors through which sustained positive transformation occurs in the network society (Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford:Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship; Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4):34–43, 2008.). Social innovation has been defined as a “novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions, and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.” (Phills,J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (4):34–43, 2008: 34.) Emergent ideas of social innovation challenge some traditional understandings of the nature and role of the Third Sector, as well as shining a light on those enterprises within the social economy that configure resources in novel ways. In this context, social enterprises – which provide a social or community benefit and trade to fulfil their mission – have attracted considerable policy attention as one source of social innovation within a wider field of action (see Leadbeater, C. (2007). ‘Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next 10 years’, Cabinet office,Office of the third sector http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms xstandard/social_enterprise_innovation.pdf. Last accessed 19/5/2011.). And yet, while social enterprise seems to have gained some symbolic traction in society, there is to date relatively limited evidence of its real world impacts.(Dart, R. Not for Profit Management and Leadership, 14(4):411–424, 2004.) In other words, we do not know much about the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise. In this chapter, we consider the social innovation practices of social enterprise, drawing on Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship: 5) three dimensions of social innovation: new combinations or hybrids of existing elements; cutting across organisational, sectoral and disciplinary boundaries; and leaving behind compelling new relationships. Based on a detailed survey of 365 Australian social enterprises, we examine their self-reported business and mission-related innovations, the ways in which they configure and access resources and the practices through which they diffuse innovation in support of their mission. We then consider how these findings inform our understanding of the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise,and their implications for public policy development.

Fostering wellbeing of immigrants and refugees? Evaluating the outcomes of work integration social enterprise

Work integration social enterprises (WISE) seek to create employment and pathways to employment for those highly disadvantaged in the labour market. This chapter examines the effects of WISE on the wellbeing of immigrants and refugees experiencing multiple barriers to economic and social participation. Drawing on an evaluation of a programme that supports seven such enterprises in the Australian state of Victoria, the effects of involvement for individual participants and their communities are examined. The study finds that this social enterprise model affords unique local opportunities for economic and social participation for groups experiencing significant barriers to meaningful employment. These opportunities have a positive impact on individual and community-level wellbeing. However, the financial costs of the model are high relative to other employment programmes, which is consistent with international findings on intermediate labour market programmes. The productivity costs of WISE are also disproportionately high compared to private sector competitors in some industries. This raises considerable dilemmas for social enterprise operators seeking to produce social value and achieve business sustainability while bearing high productivity costs to fulfil their mission. Further, the evaluation illuminates an ongoing need to address the systemic and structural drivers of health and labour market inequalities that characterize socio-economic participation for immigrants and refugees.

The relationship of entrepreneurial orientation, Vincentian values and economic and social performance in social enterprise

This study focuses on the managerial question “should social enterprises become more entrepreneurial?” It adapts the Covin and Slevin (1989) entrepreneurial orientation scale to measure the adoption of entrepreneurship by a social enterprise, and develops a scale that combines a Vincentian based focus to serve the poor with a propensity to take a more entrepreneurial approach toward business as a measure of a social value orientation (SVO).

Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures : Performance evaluation of social enterprise

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the growing emphasis on quantifiable performance measures such as social return on investment (SROI) in third sector organisations – specifically, social enterprise – through a legitimacy theory lens. It then examines what social enterprises value (i.e. consider important) in terms of performance evaluation, using a case study approach. Design/methodology/approach Case studies involving interviews, documentary analysis, and observation, of three social enterprises at different life-cycle stages with different funding structures, were constructed to consider “what measures matter” from a practitioner's perspective. Findings Findings highlight a priority on quality outcomes and impacts in primarily qualitative terms to evaluate performance. Further, there is a noticeable lack of emphasis on financial measures other than basic access to financial resources to continue pursuing social goals. Social implications The practical challenges faced by social enterprises – many of which are small to medium sized – in evaluating performance and by implication organisational legitimacy are contrasted with measures such as SROI which are resource intensive and have inherent methodological limitations. Hence, findings suggest the limited and valuable resources of social enterprises would be better allocated towards documenting the actual outcomes and impacts as a first step, in order to evaluate social and financial performance in terms appropriate to each objective, in order to demonstrate organisational legitimacy. Originality/value Findings distinguish between processes which may hold symbolic legitimacy for select stakeholder groups, and processes which hold substantive, cognitive legitimacy for stakeholders more broadly, in the under-researched context of social enterprise.

Business model publicness and socialness of the social enterprise

Social enterprise is important. Yet, there has been diverse understanding of the phenomenon in the literature. This paper attempts to make sense of the social enterprise phenomenon in the literature from a two-layer framework of two-by-two matrices. The first layer juxtaposes social enterprise against other organizations (a typology of organizations) and the second layer classifies different types of social enterprises (a typology of social enterprise). This framework may provide researchers with tools to develop a clear and comprehensive definition of social enterprise. For practitioners, the ability to recognize structures of different types of social enterprises may offer them guideline to design the appropriate business model to serve their purposes.

Acquaintance or partner? Social economy organisations, institutional logics and regional development in Australia

The social economy as a regional development actor is gaining greater attention given its purported ability to address social and environmental problems. This growth in interest is occurring within a global environment that is calling for a more holistic understanding of development compared to traditionally economic-centric conceptions. While regional development policies and practices have long considered for-profit businesses as agents for regional growth, there is a relatively limited understanding of the role of the social economy as a development actor. The institutional environment is a large determinant of all kinds of entrepreneurial activity, and therefore understanding the relationships between the social economy and broader regional development processes is warranted. This paper moves beyond suggestions of an economic-centric focus of regional development by utilising institutional logics as a theoretical framework for understanding the role of social enterprise in regional development. A multiple case study of ten social enterprises in two regional locations in Australia suggests that social enterprise can represent competing logics to economic-centric institutional values and systems. The paper argues that dominant institutional logics can constrain or promote the inter-play between the social and the economic aspects of development, in the context of social enterprise.

Design led innovation as a means to sustain social innovation enterprises

This proposition challenges the notion that clean technology firms, who form part of the emerging social innovation enterprise sector, do not have the resources to gain value from Design Led innovation practices, due to their size and operational constraints. Much has been written on the benefits of linking design and design thinking to organisational strategy and business transformation. The term Design Led in the context of this proposition is defined as the tools and approaches which enable design thinking to be embedded as a cultural transformation within a business. Being Design Led requires a company to have a vision for top line growth within their business, which is based on deep customer insights and expanded through customer and stakeholder engagements, with the outcomes being mapped to all aspects of the business to enable the vision to be achieved.