Social Enterprise Action Plan – Building a Sustainable Social Enterprise Sector in Scotland – Highlight Report – August 2019

1. Introduction In December 2016, the Scottish Government published a ten-year social enterprise strategy, co-produced with the social enterprise sector. The first three-year underpinning delivery plan was published in April 2017, identifying 92 actions to encourage more entrepreneurial activity, strengthen existing organisations and realise market opportunities. Since the launch of the strategy, more than £25 million has been invested into contracts, programmes and projects aligned to these strategic ambitions. This is the final year (2019-20) of the first action plan. This paper provides a summary of key highlights, a summary of a SWOT analysis carried out at the Social Enterprise Reference Group on 28 Nov 2018, a further summary of the SWOT analysis carried out by the Stakeholder Sub-Group on 6 Dec 2018 and carried out by the TSIs on 7 March 2019, a summary of the fifth Social Enterprise Reference Group discussion, an overview of spend provided at Annex A and a brief update on our approach to monitoring and evaluation. The Social Enterprise Reference Group has now met five times since the launch of the Action Plan, previous meetings having taken place on 23 June 2017, 6 December 2017, 6 July 2018, 28 November 2018, and 14 May 2019 - providing an opportunity for discussion, updates, networking and collaboration. 2. Key Highlights 2.1 Priority 1 - Stimulating Social Enterprise

Investing £1.5 million into Scotland’s social enterprise membership bodies.

More than £3 million into the Social Entrepreneurs Fund, providing advice and capital to more than 190 start-ups.

£990,000 to the Social Enterprise Academy to get social enterprise learning into every school in Scotland, reaching more than 450 schools to date.

More than £100,000 to CEMVO (Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations) for its Capacity Building Programme.

Supporting trans-national participation in the EU Social Economy Network, INTERREG and Euclid Network.

Supported the launch of Scotland’s first ‘Impact Hub’ in Inverness, the discovery phase for an ‘Impact Hub’ in Glasgow and investment for The Melting Pot’s ‘Good Ideas Academy’.

Providing £320,000 to Firstport to deliver LaunchMe, Scotland’s accelerator programme for early stage social enterprises.

Capturing and sharing the legacy of a decade of growth, providing support to the Yunus Centre to build and tour ‘Scotland’s Social Enterprise Collections’.

£266,000 for the Enterprise Accelerator, a partnership between Scottish Community Alliance and Community Enterprise, to support community-based organisations which aspire to trade.

2.2 Priority 2 - Stronger Organisations

£2.3 million to provide free business support through Just Enterprise with more than 2,800 social enterprises benefitting.

Independent review of business support conducted, laying the foundations for successor arrangements over the next four years.

£400,000 to Big Issue Invest to deliver its ‘Power-Up Scotland’ programme, providing corporate mentoring and investment to 20 social enterprise over the next two years.

£120,000 for the ‘match-trading’ Trade Up 2018 programme, delivered by School for Social Entrepreneurs.

£270,000 to Community Shares Scotland, an innovative way for communities to raise the funding they need, supporting projects like Govanhill Baths and the Rockfield Centre.

More than £500,000 to Partnership for Procurement, providing support to those interested in forming consortia to bid for larger contracts.

£377,000 to Social Investment Scotland to provide social investment awareness and readiness support.

More than £170,000 to establish the International Social Enterprise Observatory and drive Scotland’s international work.

Bursary programmes for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 Social Enterprise World Forum.

Support for social enterprises headquartered in Scotland with an international reach, as well as those replicating their offer globally.

2.3 Priority 3 - Realising Market Opportunities

More than £1 million directly invested to support the demonstration of Public Social Partnerships.

An independent evaluation of public social partnerships carried out by Glasgow Caledonian University.

Following the end of the Ready for Business Contract, the transfer of the RfB Register to Partnership for Procurement.

Sponsorship of Social in the Gardens, ‘Scotland’s Festival of Social Enterprise’ and the Ethnic Minority Impact Awards.

Research to consider ways to build the profile of social enterprise in Scotland delivered by Social Value Lab.

£70,000 for the continuation of Social Investment Scotland’s Retail Academy. 3. Social Enterprise Reference Group – SWOT Analysis 3.1 General Overview

At the fourth reference group meeting organised by Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise on 28 November 2018, participants carried out a SWOT analysis of each of the three priorities in the Action Plan and the actions delivered so far. As a general overview, a few major themes emerged:

A focus on local needs, particularly in rural areas, is required.

Engaging with young people to determine why they might purchase from a social enterprise and how they can become involved in social enterprises throughout their future career.

A continued emphasis on education and training - through both training individuals within SEs, particularly in financial literacy and core business skills, and beyond SEs through awareness campaigns.

A certification for consumer markets would help to raise awareness and to clearly identify to consumers the social impact of their purchases.

The SE ecosystem could be decluttered through streamlining organisations that are currently supporting SEs in similar domains and in turn would help to free up resources.

Each priority area can be summarised as follows (full write up of the SWOT can be found at Annex B: 3.2 Priority 1: Stimulating Social Enterprise

Funding opportunities are available for all sizes and stages of development, but usually going towards the same ideas and/or organisations. Potential to diversify the grant funding and focus on local organisations.

The landscape is very crowded with a number of organisations doing similar activities, and other areas where there is no presence – the Social Enterprise Map will help to clarify.

Consumer awareness and research into what is wanted needs to be improved.

The importance of interacting with young people- educating them about shopping ethically, promoting social enterprises as a viable career, and involvement in policy making.

Collaborating with academic bodies to develop more research, studentships, forums, etc.

Potential to tap into digital resources to promote SEs, but may require some educational needs among the current SEs.

3.3 Priority 2: Developing Stronger Organisations

Good government backing with focus on putting money into needs of the community, however not enough delivered to the local SEs, particularly with a focus on a rural context.

Many similar organisations undertaking the same work, potential to consolidate and free up resources- would also help to make it easier to navigate the SE ecosystem.

Many innovative financial models developed but there still remains that there is not enough financial support to grassroots/ local SENs.

More work is needed on collaborations and partnership opportunities eg. Tendering.

Learning and Development for SE champions needs continued investment, particularly in financial/investment literacy & business skills.

Limited connectivity & dialogue between public sector teams, opportunities to demonstrate how SEs can contribute to different teams. Eg. Finance, procurement, etc.

3.4 Priority 3: Realising Market Opportunities

The opportunity to be flexible and responsive with programmes like the ASDA Academy is beneficial.

PSPs have not been adopted as a model, but offer a new opportunity of focus and investment.

Local authorities are at different stages of commissioning services.

Need to focus on market testing as part of business support, in order to ensure service/goods are needed .

SEs don’t always compete with quality and price, therefore within the consumer markets, a certification could offer clear identification to those who are looking to shop more ethically and place social impact as a priority. It also has potential to create a stronger digital presence to raise awareness.

Need more opportunities to engage with and strengthen the links to business markets and support, potential for partnerships with the private sector.

Transparency in ‘contract wins’ is needed. 4. Sub-Group SWOT Analysis The third meeting of the Stakeholder Sub-Group, organised by SENSCOT, on the 6 December 2018, carried out a similar SWOT analysis to the main reference group. The findings are summarised as follows and the full analysis can be found in Annex C. 4.1 Priority 1: Stimulating Social Enterprise

SE World Forum – a great boost for Scottish SE internationally – but best

place to ‘raise awareness’ is locally via SENs – where they exist – or TSIs.

Buy Social is only for the few.

National Intermediaries and Support Organisations must make a greater effort

to engage at a local level – particularly beyond the central belt.

Action Plan committed to ‘strengthen and extend SENs’ – it is not happening.

Inconsistent approach by TSIs to supporting SENs – some very good – some

not very interested.

Need to strengthen relationship between TSIs and SENs. – Showcase areas

where things are working well.

Concern that SE could be diluted by SG interest/support for mission-led orgs.

Any support should not come via SG TSU.

How strategic is the strategy? Has it evolved into a box-ticking exercise. What

is the vision? Is it about growth, scale, showcasing Scotland as world

leader…or genuine change? We need to debate this.

Can it not be bolder – do something new? – i.e recommendation from earlier Sub-Group - hold back 10% of annual SE Action Plan (circa £800k) for new initiatives – agreed upon by panel including SG and sector.

Ensure Strategy and Action Plan are better integrated with other SG

programmes - namely Empowering Communities Fund, Rural Development

Fund (Leader etc).

4.2 Priority 2: Developing Stronger Organisations

There is a resilient sector out there – it needs encouraged and supported.

There is concern that the Action Plan is being done to frontline SEs – not

done with them.

There is a lack of transparency about application process – who gets funded –

who decides etc – it appears very top-down. Too many of those ‘at the table’

have vested interests. Services being delivered are often tailored to meet

‘deliverers’ need – as oppose to needs of recipients/beneficiaries.

Internationalisation is all very well – but not at expense of funding/resources

to frontline organisations.

More independent training/learning on social investment.

Review of SE Intermediaries is a priority – to clarify respective roles – and

provide leadership role required.

4.3 Priority 3: Realising Market Opportunity

Need to capitalise on political support

A lot of work still to be done in terms of procurement – to help smaller

organisations access smaller contracts. Still a gap between SG rhetoric and

reality – nationally and locally.

Same applies with sub-contracting opportunities – especially in Health/Social

Care.

5. Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) - SWOT Analysis At the TSI Conference, on 7 March 2019, the same SWOT analysis was carried out throughout two breakout sessions during the conference. The findings are summarised as follows and the full analysis can be found in Annex D. 5.1 Priority 1: Stimulating Social Enterprise

The social enterprise sector within Scotland is strong and has international recognition.

A major weakness is the lack of a legal definition, leaving ambiguity around what is a social enterprise and potentially restricting funding opportunities.

Differences across TSIs engagement with social enterprises.

TSIs have not been effectively engaged with, but could provide a major opportunity to support the social enterprise sector.

Support available to social enterprises and social innovation not always clear or easily accessible.

A cluttered landscape and ecosystem makes for duplication of work and confusion among social entrepreneurs.

Opportunity to promote social enterprise throughout the entire education system.

Financial instability across the sector seen in the census, potential to introduce longer term funding to offer more stability.

5.2 Priority 2: Developing Stronger Organisations

Wide variety of support available to social enterprises; through finance options, peer support, business support, networks, and skill development.

Lacking social impacts measurement.

Cluttered landscape resulting in unclear pathway of support.

A lack of connections with volunteers and the rest of the third sector.

Emphasis on engaging with TSIs to support developing strong social enterprises- particular opportunity to develop a local perspective on support.

Major threats are the limited funding available to social enterprise and the crowded landscape.

5.3 Priority 3: Realising Market Opportunity

Partnership for Procurement a valuable asset for social enterprises to enter into markets.

A variety of weaknesses, ranging from lack of risk capital or lack of opportunities and size of contracts to the perception of social enterprises as a business delivering quality products/ services.

Opportunity to leverage the childcare and health and social care sectors- particularly important to simplify the NHS procurement process.

Potential to collaborate with business improvement districts or local authorities supply chain.

Making support available to those who don’t identify as a social enterprise.

The confusion and use around the code when defining social enterprise threatens expanding market opportunities.

Supplier development often seen as only retail, needs to broaden scope. 6. Sub Group Recommendations Two earlier meetings of the Stakeholder Sub-Group generated the following recommendations: 6.1 SE Action Plan Reference Sub-Group (Glasgow) - 22nd March 2018

A meeting to be held with SG Third Sector Unit in advance of tendering document for Business Support Contract is finalised. Also, may be worth

considering sector representation on the assessment panels for future contract – assuming there would be no conflict of interest.

During 2018/19, the SE Action Plan to implement its plans to ‘extend and strengthen’ local SENs. In the longer term, local SENs need to be allocated bespoke resources – in a similar fashion to TSIs.

Local Authority areas are to be encouraged and supported to develop local SE Action Plans for their respective areas.

On back of point 3, local SENs are to be given a dedicated budget with which to commission specific actions within the respective local SE Action Plans – in the model of ‘participatory budgeting’. See Local Governance Review

Government to hold back 10% of annual SE Action Plan (circa £800k) for new initiatives – agreed upon by panel including Govt and membership-led orgs.

6.2 SE Action Plan Reference Sub-Group (Edinburgh) – 27th June 2018

SG to look at re-introducing the ‘blended approach’ within the Social Growth Fund. i.e. along similar lines to the Scottish Investment Fund - applying a mix of strategic investment (based on social outcomes and non-repayable) and a repayable element. Most investments were around 50/50.

Pending discussions, SG to set aside a bespoke amount for loans under £20k – at affordable rates – and flexible repayment terms.

There remains an over-riding feeling that a gap continues to exist between what is happening nationally and what is happening at a grassroots level. There is a disconnect. For the Action Plan to be deemed a success, this must be addressed. The Local Governance Review could provide a vehicle for achieving this.

A review of the SE Intermediaries is welcomed – with Evaluation Support Scotland’s template providing a useful starting point. However, there are many more national intermediaries – funded by SG – whose members fall within the social/community enterprise family. A review also needs to take into consideration local/national disconnect stated in recommendation above.

7. Social Enterprise Reference Group – Action Plan Development During the fifth Social Enterprise Reference Group, 14 May 2019, stakeholders were asked four questions about the action plan, looking at the past and looking into the future. The full responses from each of the four questions can be found in Annex E. 7.1 “What Worked And Didn’t Work?”

There is a Government Commitment to work towards a specific aspiration for the sector.

The action plan was co-produced, allowing the sector to steer actions.

Some issues with co-production as bodies with a large voice were those benefiting from funding and lacked representation in engagement process.

There are too many actions. 7.2 “What Are The Gaps?”

Mentoring opportunities within the sector, enabling knowledge transfer and support.

Opportunities for the front line/ grass roots social enterprises to feed into engagement and receive investment.

More policy integration, ensuring social enterprise is not in a silo.

Engagement and alignment with other funds and programmes through government and trusts and foundations.

7.3 “How Do We Become More Transparent And Inclusive?”

Transparency needed on grant/funding process, procurement opportunities, and who Just Enterprise supports.

Inclusivity can be achieved by using intermediaries effectively.

Digital tools to engage and become inclusive for all social enterprises.

Key challenges and opportunities should be identified, and the census to help shape strategy.

7.4 “How To Measure Success?”

Use the census data to determine outcomes that can be tracked over the multiple iterations.

Identify what social impact has been made.

Clear and transparent outcomes/ achievements/ KPIs.

Increased public awareness and profile of social enterprises. 8. Monitoring and Evaluation The Scottish Government is committed to a census of the sector every two years. Building on the data produced in 2015 and 2017, a census has been conducted over the summer of 2019 and will be published in September. Delivery partners are asked to provide key monitoring data quarterly or twice annually. Working with Analytical Services Division, the Social Enterprise Team has developed an approach to evaluation, incorporating a RAG system and measurement framework. This will allow a high-level overview of the current progress made and indicate key results from the actions. A new email address (socialenterprise@gov.scot) has been established and we ask partners to provide monitoring data to this inbox for collation.

ANNEX A – Investment in Key Areas

Category Investment %

European Social Fund (Projects) £ 6,558,756.00 25.81%

Business Support £ 4,780,161.00 18.81%

Start-Up Support £ 3,777,701.00 14.87%

Social Finance £ 2,029,842.00 7.99%

Membership Bodies £ 1,491,542.00 5.87%

Internationalisation £ 1,347,296.00 5.30%

Public Social Partnerships £ 1,294,200.00 5.09%

Learning and Development £ 1,234,331.00 4.86%

Education £ 998,490.00 3.93%

Procurement Support £ 776,134.00 3.05%

Intrapreneurship £ 325,000.00 1.28%

Research £ 259,802.00 1.02%

University Collaboration £ 166,566.00 0.66%

Major Events and Awareness Raising £ 151,265.00 0.60%

Competitions £ 97,000.00 0.38%

Impact Measurement £ 69,063.00 0.27%

Publications £ 51,162.00 0.0

Total £ 25,408,311.00

£-

£1,000,000.00

£2,000,000.00

£3,000,000.00

£4,000,000.00

£5,000,000.00

£6,000,000.00

£7,000,000.00

Social Enterprise Strategy

Annex B – Full SWOT Analysis from Social Enterprise Reference Group 28 Nov 2018

Priority 1- Stimulating Social Enterprise Strengths

Why would children choose to buy social?

Engage & deliver bespoke programmes to BME communities- hard to reach – there is a programme to suit individual needs

New mission-led movement – compliment? Who supports?

Eco-system contact/ relationships with universities

The funding opportunities available for social enterprises of all sizes and stages

Continue international collaboration to learn and share our SE development experience

What if and other locally focused programmes take local circumstances into account- build on assets. Also boost capacity and confidence in the target areas

RSG network

Early stage (schools) program very impactful

Weaknesses

Landscape mapping

More start-up funding and development funding

Where are the gaps in local development? South of Scotland?

Investment required for language services- Scotland is so diverse however other ‘language’ services are not offered

Social Enterprise model, confused with a legal structure

Need for greater IT/ data support to modernise services and back office processes

Crowded and confused landscape lots of organisation and programmes new map of support will help

Lack of local knowledge within TSI network or CLD (local authority) teams

General awareness of social enterprise low

Consumer research about what will sell/inspire young people

Although a sub group has been set up feeding into the reference group- it still feels top down from the perspective of social enterprise working on the ground

Need a focal point to learn from rural experience- different context, community led, market failure, sustainability, etc. higher prevalence of activity but limited influence to national context

College sector (social enterprise sector)

Too many of the regular suspects (to national agencies) supported through the funds and not enough grass roots social enterprises.

Opportunities

Attracting talent to the sector- from private organisations to young people.

Education at all levels- school age, undergraduates (promotion of social enterprise specific modules), the workforce, older people etc. Easy to understand, online resources need to explain the model and direct people to social enterprises and social enterprise support.

Direct resources such as growth fund essential

SEWF, but have a Scottish enterprise forum

Consolidate award ceremonies “National/ Scottish social enterprise awards”

Build on existing education resources and projects, and links between academia and sector to facilitate social enterprise forum. Eg. Yunus centre for social business and health, Commonhealth programme, social enterprise collection (Scotland)

Social enterprise academic forum- look at purpose, scope and influential impact but don’t assume a university chair is best

Threats

Duplication of services in same areas, not enough duplication where there is no presence

Not enough communication between delivery agencies & partners to refer & share information

Not enough referral to bespoke services, ie. No BME networks

Social enterprise brand might get co-opt by mainstream

Agree funding priorities quickly, efficiently so organisations can deliver (SG)

Financial education: the basics in cash flow, budgets, profit is needed

Social enterprises can measure their impact and improve overall effectiveness through Scotland CANB

Engage with, support & learn from: Erasmus Vise Net? development of learning resources for

supporting rural social enterprise

Social media campaigns led by young influencers

£20 million empowering communities fund- are we connecting

Consortia- digital, local collaborative hubs can make it easier to succeed, see: can do places, can (melting pot)

Participatory Budget

Collaboration partnerships & pre-start programmes needed

Young person-led policy groups (not just academics)

Next phase EST funding

What would we want the academic forum to do? Commission longitudinal studies?

Get involved with Scotland’s enterprising schools (via Yunus Enterprise Scotland)

Further research to be carried out to understand the gaps in service provision. What certain groups don’t engage. Understanding what barriers may need overcome.

There is the willing from people to ‘create good’ but not knowing what to do and who to approach stops them so nothing progresses

Placement & Internship opportunities to strengthen capacity with SEs & support organisations & increase knowledge and understanding and awareness with future workforce/ entrepreneurs & leaders

Citizen at the centre of it all: TSI, local SMEs, Health and social care, LA, social enterprise

National programme should publish statistics on delivery locally in each local authority area

Using digital resources to increase engagement & access to learning & networking & collaboration

Better story telling space for SE infographic series to promote success/impact

More focus on “buy social”, social enterprise day, etc.

Get involved with SSE Scotland- recruiting start-ups for 2019/20 programme January

Priority 2- Developing Stronger Organisations Strengths

Align community needs with community money

Drawing together mainstream & niche support & recognising there’s more to do

Tests communities desire to fund a perceived need

New innovative match trading business model- SSE Scotland

Collaborations of Social Enterprise and willingness to knowledge-share (should facilitate even more platforms for connection for all sizes of organisations)

Good government backing

Observatory needs to have rural focus building on strengths

Weaknesses

Response to bespoke seminar- SME organisations to specialist support

Need more transparency on spending decisions

Investor/ enterprise alignment, financial services engagement

Actually measuring social impact

Unauthentic branding

Not enough filter down to local SEs

Not enough blended approaches on SE journey

Too much focus on the Code

Too many similar organisations providing similar support to unclear benefit for the sector (opportunities to merge/consolidate & free up resources)

SEs are reactive to delivery programmes, need to be proactive in shaping programmes

Scottish enterprise still struggles to make progress accessible to social enterprises & mission-led small business- how can we work with them to change this?

Not enough practical/ financial support to grassroots/ SENs

Disconnect between national delivery programmes & local need & expectation

Where do local third sector interfaces sit within SE support?

Gap between start up support & new scale up

Access to financed support that’s not just loans for growth. ‘equity’ adopted back to support enterprise growth?

Geographical gaps in support

Opportunities

Greater quality of training for social enterprise and social enterprise employees that matches the quality of the private sector- will not only improve quality of organisations internal operation whilst also encouraging and enabling younger people to choose Social Enterprise as a viable option for career development and capture young talent

Ensuring business support is known and accessible for ALL social enterprises and providing options of support that match the stage, size or needs of each SE. Directing SEs to all services and options for business support and services of different sizes. (This is what we at Freshsight seek to do!)

Opportunity to streamline and make it easier for clients

Recognition of Enterprise and Skills. Review for future support

Local SENs need more resources and more local involvement in delivery of action plan

Opp to explore how social investment can meet the needs of social enterprises with international ambition- who can be seen as too risky

Threats

Engagement with SIB & SNIB

3X Agencies

Lack of connectivity & dialogue between and across public sector teams, ie. Social justice, enterprise, finance, procurement, etc.

Frontline organisations deliver the impacts. This could be forgotten if focus always on delivery agents

Support for emerging area is lost

Brexit & EU Monies

Blended finance options grant/loan

More required on collaboration tendering opportunities

Partnership opportunities (SSE Scotland)

Greater emphasis on inclusive growth agenda- wider social impacts

Be a part of the broader enterprise ecosystem, Scotland can do (cando.scot - entrepreneurial Scotland facilitate)

Opportunities for small SE’s to have their voices heard through collaboration and consortia are key to stronger organisations

More awareness of income generation/ procuring seminars “trade up”

Consolidate the number of organisations- too many doing the same thing

Scotland CAN B helps build stronger organisations, canb.scot

Action learning methodology- school for social entrepreneur Scotland. Much need to support social entrepreneurs journey- peer support- needs supported financially to achieve robust social enterprises

Financial/ Investment literacy should be improved

Management & other “hard” business skills also need to be a priority for learning and development

Increase availability and understanding of alternative finance models

Investment liquidity- firsts? & secondary markets

Blended finance- grant/loan

Alternative investment tools- collaboration with wider business growth/ investment world & SNIB

Young Entrepreneurs Strategy, including: social internships, social business management qualification, young rural entrepreneur program

Focus on board awareness/ confidence building to explore enterprising models (sustainability/ charity sector)

Co-produce business support like contracts with frontline SEs & included them on tender procurement process

Achieve better integration with empowering communication?

Facilitated (organised) practitioner networking/ information sharing groups to support increase support agency referrals/ understanding

Scope to focus on & learn from specific rural context- to develop resources/ learning & support for community led enterprise- responding to community need & market failure & to rebalance from what is heavily influenced by urban stakeholders. To inform future work re community empowerment, etc.

Priority 3- Realising Market Opportunities Strengths

Being flexible and responsive

ASDA Academy

Positive commissioning landscape opps

RSG Network sharing info

Customers buying from social enterprises in Scotland

Showcase community business areas like Stronian?

Mini grants to help SEs borrow

Weaknesses

Public sector spend is constricting

Lack of agreement re support to develop consumer markets- need to address different needs in relation to SE diversity vs. produce based

PSP has not really been adopted as a model

Pace to recommission “Developing Markets” Gotta keep going!

Local authorities all at different stages of the commissioning of services

Demand ??? for PSPs – no current support/ investment

Link between business support & market opportunity- does business support (inc. beyond social enterprise specific, eg. University R+D support) focus enough on market testing validating market for products & services

Opportunities

Digital presence for consumer products

Focus on a proof point for a PSP

High quality, focused training and support for ambitions/ scaling organisations

Build on developing markets- target specific markets

More opportunities in business markets

Partnerships with the private sector- not only get the names of social enterprise out there by reaching mass consumers, but can also allow the private sector to recognise the value of the SE model

Use those councils pro-active to raise awareness

Create the equivalent of the “world food” “free from” aisles with “made in SE”

Certification is a great opportunity to raise awareness and understanding of SE

Place impact as a priority, above price, when making purchasing decisions. Particularly key for public authorities and business for whom budgets are often prioritised

Support a new ‘supported business alliance’ to champion SBS and work with commissions

Use big organisations eg. American express in the same way they (AMEX) undertake “shop local”

Data of “contract wins” social enterprises need to get that tracked in PCS (not more with SMES)

Build capacity building support (supplier academy) for different sectors – retail/ corporate, etc.

Strengthen links between mainstream business support & sector, e.g. VA SLAED & SELAG Groups

Third sector buy-in

Alternatives to PSP model being developed & tested (social building finance) the Robertson trust

Threats

Loss of momentum & connection with public sector with delay following developing markets pros

Social enterprises may not compete in terms of quality, price, marketing etc. – most offer better products/ services in order to offer effective competition and lead to sustained changes in purchasing choices

Monopoly of private companies over markets (and charities!)

Why do people buy from social enterprises?

Economies of scale, reality of affordability over willingness to support social impact

NO evidence of support for national accreditation scheme

Buy social in Scotland- great potential for commercial sector engagement

The expansion of local authority provision to ¾ year olds to 30 hours per week from 2020 provides a valuable opportunity for SE in early years care

We need much more focus on consumer markets

Annex C – Full SWOT Analysis from Social Enterprise Stakeholder Sub Group 6 Dec 2018 (comments in bold note repeated statements)

Priority 1- Stimulating Social Enterprise Strenghts

Social Enterprise World Forum

Many TSIs are supportive of SE

Local SENs and TSIs in best place to raise awareness as they are local

Acceptance of SE Code as benchmark in Scotland

Weaknesses

Support (financial) must get down to grassroots

Enterprise programmes overlap with existing within schools from local LAs

National entrepreneurs’ programmes not local enough and not matured to local

opportunities

Not all TSIs are fully supportive of SE

Not asking SEs what the need – just offering what is available, even if it

doesn’t fit

No collaboration between all organisation as to who is doing what, with who and

when

TSI in-fighting stifles innovation & blocks progress

A lot of SE don’t know that they are SEs

Internationalisation focus is at the expense of front line SE. Funding for

International activity should come out of ‘Global Scotland’ budget.

Only really one place to go for start-up funding (Firstport)

Reluctance of intermediaries to leave central belt. New SEs have no

budget to travel to Edinburgh etc or time.

Not all TSI have the same approach to supporting start up or development

SEs can’t navigate complex landscape. Failure to get development

support they need.

Opportunities

SENs can join up new SEs with existing to provide peer support

New TSI framework emphasis on social enterprise support locally

Fund local SENs to develop local social enterprises

Provide national marketing – to raise awareness of SE, TSIs and SENs

Local SENs best places to raise awareness in local areas but need to be

funded to do so – greater engagement with Local Authorities

Spend more time, money and energy talking about what SE is and its

economic impact

Highlight & publicise where SEN + TSIs work well in partnership (develop

models)

Ensure Strategy and Action Plan are better integrated with other SG

programmes - namely Empowering Communities Fund, Rural

Development Fund (Leader etc).

Threats SEs fail because they don’t get the support needed at each stage

The ‘census’ is not the perfect measure of progress – still too early to

measure difference over time. Trends

Ensure there is no move away from using the Code to say what an SE

is.

Lack of national marketing and promotion

Dilution of what we mean by social enterprise

Relationships between SENs & TSIs need strengthened.

Priority 2- Developing Stronger Organisations Strengths Resilient sector and members

Good models already exist in the SENs. Need to capitalise on these and better

argue the case

There is a lot of support out there – need to make sure it gets to right places

Good ‘vision statement’

Weaknesses

Not enough time allowed to respond to delivering/funding opportunities.

Lack of capacity with Govt TSD

Business support is not locally aware – of operating environment & local

competition

Lack of resources for SENs to operate effectively.

TSD Funds being used for international initiatives

Struggling to get small loans - too much paperwork relative to the sum of money

Not enough opportunities for start-ups to access seedcorn funding

Genuine feeling that the S.E Action Plan is just about box ticking and not

about really wanting to help at grassroots.

Opportunities, resources + funding should be same in each area. All

advisors should have training + all be same.

Govt to be transparent with who money goes to + what spent on. Provide

evidence.

Top down design and delivery

Lack of resources to deliver the vision

Too many vested interests making case for their own funding, rather than

making sure funding gets down to SEs

Not enough understanding of cultural issues and barriers

Too many organisations abbreviates/acronyms. A confused and cluttered

landscape for SEs

Need to improve our ‘leadership’ of and for the SE sector in Scotland.

Being told what we need to develop - not asked

Costs too much to leave central belt. So some intermediaries won’t go to more

rural areas.

Messy landscape, confusing for SEs to know who does what. Lack of

capacity within the third sector

Opportunities Need more social investment knowledge

Leadership programmes should be available locally

Support/fund local delivery not national

Action plan itself

One central point (a website – nationwide) which explains each organisation

(including ones at local level) and what they do and how to access it.

Threats SEs realising that all funding spent in same old areas & start shouting about

how unfair it is

SEs averse to loan and other finance – risk & lack of sustainability to repay

SE Reference group is made up of only organisation that have a vested

interest. It should be made up of grassroots SE’s. They could realise this

and go to newspapers

Lack of support/ambition to grow the sector- need to see beyond the localism

argument.

Business support could be delivered more effectively by local SENs who know

local situation & people

Government should listen to/connect with social enterprises + not those making

money from us.

Independent review of governance, organisation and responsibilities

A glossary directory or roadmap to help navigate complexity

Better communications between TSI & SEN + referrals

More engagement with the private & public sector regarding sub-

contracting comm. benefit clauses to SEs.

Scope to develop more regional support e.g. – regional SENs

The voice of the SENs and their needs not being heard by Intermediaries

and Govt.

Business support also available through the TSI

Deliver more support locally via new Bus Support contract = more collaboration

between small/local SEs

SG often refers to SE ‘membership’ organisations – need to be honest

about memberships ‘count’

Priority 3- Realising Market Opportunities Strengths Openness of 3rd sector - plus it is the right thing to do

P4P been a great resource & I’ve put SE in touch with them with great

success

Political will supports SE growth, capitalise on this

Weaknesses Transparency of decision making around who gets money to deliver

services

Lack of opportunity to get access to funding to deliver this objective

Many grassroots SEs don’t see this as very relevant, as they struggle to

continue to deliver on day-today basis

Lack of SEs able to bid for meaningful contracts

SEs don’t have confidence or capacity to tender for contracts

The SG body responsible – does not understand procurement

Stranglehold of centre ignores local opportunities

Barriers to entry – public procurement bias against smaller contracts

Small scale procurement for groups required

Public procurement too risk adverse

Lack of blended finance

SEs are poor at marketing - & even recognising the power of & need for

effective marketing

Stop using ‘buy social’ – it seems to be for a small ‘elite’.

Need further and meaningful reform of public procurement think ‘fair start’

Opportunities Threats

Social enterprises trading with wider society organisations

Community benefit with each local authority. Could be legislated +

resource available to help private businesses partner with SE’s

Local SE fairs would open up markets & raise awareness of SEs but needs

budget & time to organise.

Utilise the SEN network better because of the links to front line

organisation

Create network of SE hubs (physical or virtual) to increase capacity to procure

contracts, currently going to national bodies

Link to & use of community benefit clauses in LA/commercial contracts

Enable SEN’s to have more money (or any money) to spend on promoting local

SE’s to consumers.

Development of more (local) social enterprise directories

Social care & social prescribing are massive opportunities for SEs locally,

as they know their communities

Funding given to Social in the Garden (Edinburgh). Fund similar events

throughout Scotland

More emphasis regarding subcontracting community benefit clauses to social

enterprises

Need to act as a matchmaker between SEN members and businesses

extend the Buy better & SE festival campaigns.

Is Govt TSD right place to house SE?

Local Authorities lack of knowledge/understanding of SE

Confusing SE with mission-led business. Any funding for mission-led

activity should not come from Third Sector Division

Annex D – Full SWOT Analysis from the TSI Conference 7 March 2019

Priority 1- Stimulating Social Enterprise Strengths

Training and support for new SEs

TSIs have existing networks

Demand/ Interest

Strong Brand in Scotland

Scotland nationally recognised as exemplars

Export focus

Weaknesses

Confusion about all these organisations

Not all TSIs involved

Make accessible & appropriate pre-incubation/ incubation/ start up space

Legal definition is a weakness

Lack of understanding about what SE is. No legal definition

May be seen as a way of delivering more for less

People want SE benefits but sometimes really want to run a private office

Crowded landscapes

Costs of your services & courses

Limited reach of organisations on the ground in Islands

Lack of start-up funding opportunities

Interpretation/ understanding of term ‘social enterprise’ – not grant reliant.

So busy, very little time to consider/ find out about available support

Lack of parity across TSI support- some doesn’t see SE as a priority/ area

Awareness of ‘innovation’ support unclear

Not all areas/ SEs are connected through networks- still!

No inequality focus/ priority

Not sure that most of these initiatives are reaching people in disadvantaged areas/ with less confidence

SE education is weak

TSI’s not even on chart. Really? At a TSI conference.

Some new SEs contacting Business Gateway and not been referred onto

existing network of support.

Opportunities

Utilise TSIs

Encourage very local networking to identify opportunities for communities

Enterprise support & awards in high schools

Access to fully funded legal advice

Promote SEs throughout the whole Education system

Consolidation! Far too many agencies

Drop the politics (Senscot)

Need to build trust and accessible support networks for local groups affected by public sector cutes- where social enterprise may be part of a solution

Many Different partners

Threats

Lack of money to be earned by the social entrepreneur

Not enough investment in grass roots, local social enterprises

TSI Engagement is unclear

Money

Short term nature of many initiatives means help appears/ disappears is not always useful- leaving people feeling lost/ confused

Difficulty of filter down through TSI, particularly partnerships which have extra

layer.

Engagement with schools and further education from grassroots create programmes incorporate until create scenarios & experiences

More support for established enterprises and for community anchors

Census shows many SEs struggling, ie. Finance stats. How can this be

addressed through action plan investment?

Priority 2- Developing Stronger Organisations Strengths

Variety of organisations funded to develop SEs

Sharing of resources & skills

Diversity of Finance options

Senscot SE toolkit real opportunity for people to consider actual way forward.

Peer to peer support is valued

Business support is exceptional

Network opportunities develop more grass roots

Range of support

Very good feedback from SEs going through leadership courses with SEA

Weaknesses

Nationals don’t deliver what they advertise as supports. Post Code Lottery.

Busy landscape- organisations not sure where to go

Formal/legal definition

Difficult to see what’s what in a crowded landscape

Lots of organisational support overlap. Who best placed to support?

Complexity of support landscape

Start-up risk needs to be shared by stakeholders ie, public sector, Scottish Government- not all lie with social enterprise/ leadership

No adult education network on specific support

TSIs not even listed on your chart but this is our bread & butter, we need that recognition.

Social impact measurement is lacking

Lack of links to rest of 3rd sector

TSIs not on chart!

Limited links and opportunities for volunteers

Duplicate & gaps

Raising awareness of TSI network as a source of support

Disconnect between support

Duplication & gaps

Clear pathway through support options

How do we measure potential?

Suitable premises for SEs just starting out.

Opportunities

Develop further with TSI network

Focus on local economy rather than sector

Cultrate TSC specialist capacity do provide support to local social entrepreneurs

Again work with and include local TSIs

Social Enterprise venture capital mechanism/ initiative

Underwrite social enterprise

TSIs have local knowledge and ability to have 1-2-1 supportive client-led relationships

Threats

Too short funding

Fragmented support landscape, language interchangeable

Lack of support

Funding for S.E.

Funding

No funding networks

Crowded landscapes

SE network being body to consider asset transfer on behalf of members

Communication & collaboration

Involve & use TSIs more effectively

Percentage of action plan funding should be allocated to local support organisations

Growth of new creative funding opportunities

Be inclusive with rest of 3rd sector collaborate

Share learning experience more widely

Social enterprise audit of claims

Landscape confusion & ‘place in market’

Priority 3- Realising Market Opportunity Strengths

P4P a good source of help

Varied plan already there ( just needs checked by grass roots)

SE festival public/ consumer facing

Support in public market is adequate

Direct 1-1 support from P4P

Improved collaborative working between social enterprises

Weaknesses

Lack of public awareness

Inability to scale due to lack of risk capital

Difference between organisation types and investment in community/asset lock not understood.

Cultural change- if it’s not invented/ run by NHS then it’s not as worthy/professional

NHS/ public bodies unsure as to what social enterprises are- and we are still not free of charge

Increased transparency, on the progress of the actions & the priorities (some actions more critical than others)

Lack of ‘intermediaries’ is a weakness & a threat

Suitability/type of service product being provided.

Capacity of social enterprises to deliver on scale required

Same social enterprises utilised/ lack of opportunities

Seen as a last resort rather than first resort, even where demonstrating delivery

Confidence to engage

Community based and it – how is it working in practice for TSIs & community

Consumer market support is weak

Councils unsure about SEs. See some as businesses and not recognising social benefits

Lack of understanding in local authorities

Size of contracts

Governance structures seen as getting in way of doing work.

Gap between value places on sector and resources reading majority of sector

which are small, local

Opportunities

How do SEs benefit from public sector procurement

Threats

Inability to scale up properly

Community transport

SE & coproduction approach could go hand-in-hand

Childcare expansion/ out of school care

Health & social care alternatives to day care/ befriending/ food

Work more closely with TSIs – Not all know about your networks

Clarity about where public bodies meet social enterprises. We have a local SEN but public bodies sometimes prefer to do own research.

Collaboration with business improvement districts

Encouraging local community groups to recognise their potential/ sustainability

Legislation re: local authorities using SEs in supply chain

Build on the SE festival to reach wider audience & engage SEs from across Scotland

NHS procurement processes need to be simplified to enable social prescribers, etc.

Better in roads to health market place are needed/available

Co-create work with rest of 3rd sector (including via TSIs)

SG guidance to councils, HSCPs etc on procurement commissioning workforce (equity, fairness)

SEs on preferred contractors list

This needs to go hand in hand with capacity building, business support- not a separate issue

Funding for social enterprise actions- to go to TSI . Ringfence % of money investment- for direct use by TSIs

How do we engage/ support those who are delivering impact but don’t see themselves as social enterprises

Develop suitable / open(?) of purchasing programmes (?)- Demonstrate benefit to public authorities of using SEs

“Buy Social” appropriate for the wider social economy- protect “social enterprise” organisations that are code compliant- show they have gone the ‘extra mile’ re asset & social benefit work

Scotland’s SE festival – raising awareness, moving ethos, outwith the capital

Better use of existing network to help prioritise

Utilise business of private sector to assist support through community benefits

Sometimes a ‘market’ should be a public service

Resistance to becoming an enterprise

Resistance from local authorities, ie. Needing to jump through more hoops

Ensure the code is the baseline for any national recognition scheme- threat of dilution & losing goodwill from number SE if not

Confusion created dye to use of ‘social enterprise’ to describe organisation that do not meet code definition

Supplier development academy- too narrow ! (retail only)

Continued 1-2-1 support

The public sector need to work on being a better customer – ie. Paying on time, etc. Challenges for small contractors to manage cashflow

Robust accreditation for SE

Annex E- Full Reference Group Discussion from 14 May 2019 1) What Worked And Didn’t Work?

We have one! It is resourced & linked to the 10-year strategy

Co-production has continued

Start-up support/ funding is available

Innovation, ie. ‘community shares’ & ‘tests of change’

Too agency-led, not enough awareness- review engagement

Lack of diversity in representation, usual suspects?

Speed affected ability to engage, and understand nuance.

Survey fatigue!

Self-serving? Involved bodies that were going to benefit from funding

Factor in measurement of success from the start

Citizens assembly- pay them to come, incentivise

Citizens assembly- randomised selection of SEs (and organisations that don’t IDGS SEs)

Too many actions

Equalities voice wasn’t central/ first in the process

Idea- other people need to ask the questions

It’s been a start

Enterprising third sector focus – charity & enterprise

An example in global context of “co-produced” strategy

Provides a reference point and clarity of aspiration – an element of transparency?

Government Commitment- a good attempt at wide engagement

Global focus

Clarity around the code reflected in the strategy

Evaluation model and plan clear and transparent

Role in tackling inequality- range of experience to further inform

Wider influence (cross gov’t) and focus on inclusive growth

Marketing opportunity

SE map

Growth demonstrated in sector as a result of AP activities

Framework for organisations outwith sector to refer to signpost

Stronger joint working

Improved services brought about by longer term services and confidence provided to delivery agencies to invest

Profile of SE in government

Shape and focus to SG activity and funding

Range of support available- to organisations at different stages, levels, sectors 2) What Are The Gaps?

Public Markets- need to invest in prevention/ measure it, community wealth building

Need ‘sector’/ industry specific business support

Peer support/ mentoring across all parts of the sector

Direct investment to front line

More focus in how to move actions forward - Identifying groups - Strengthening organisations that are delivering/offer additional support

TSIs need to be further engaged in absence of VAS

Previous process was strong and well produced. - Gaps: sustainability (more attention on trusts& foundations) - Gaps: strategic investment & looking at different ways of funding - Gaps: involve trusts & foundations in the development process

Lack of alignment to other funds/ programmes. Eg. Climate challenge fund, community funds, etc.

Policy integration, Expecting individuals to join the dots

Reframe to make SE more relevant! It is a mechanism, not an end in itself

Action plan makes SE feel like a silo

Pre-capacity, more emphasis needed

Diversity needs reflected

Too many action points

Still too top down & influenced by big payers

MORE opportunities for bottom up approach, ie. Identify issues/opportunities

Resources to support local engagement & SENs

Local strategies link to national strategy and inform

Joined up across different government/ sectors, etc.

Social Enterprise not having a community remit

Using the past to inform the future- dialogue, mentoring between generations

Opportunities for more thematic SENs/ community charities (enterprises) growth/ambitions/ internationalisation

Lack of geographical SENs

Strategic view of finance needed for the sector- social investment funding sub group to develop necessary financial products/ services

Transition to social investment loan through a grant/ loan mix

Funders strategic involvement

National branded campaign

Academic research social enterprise practice

Climate change- joint working/ opportunities 3) How Do We Become More Transparent & Inclusive?

Conflicts of interest on reference group

Grand process- action planning

Consult & engage with sector (use intermediaries) digital surveys (thematic?)

Transparency needs to improve on: - Who gets funding & decision-making - Access to information & who gets support via Just Enterprise - What goes to procurement? What doesn’t? - Learn from failure/crisis emergency intervention fine

Trust in intermediaries to properly represent their member organisations

Stakeholder groups - Need to think what in next for opportunity in community enterprise/ social enterprise and ensure those voices are represented - Engage other policy areas within Scottish Government

Start with key questions what are challenges and opportunities (say 3-5)

Greater connection between sub group and strategy group- invite SE reps (& resource) with changing representation

Better use of digital to be inclusive

Digital leadership/involving young people/ succession planning

Census should shape strategy priorities, ie. Small & local, etc.

Digital engagement, apps, websites

How can we engage better with housing providers? SFHA/ supply chain?

Discussion with local authorities on community development and SE.

4) How To Measure Success?

How did member organisations consult with their members

Guided by census data

Clarity around what the outcomes are, keep things simple and structured

Alignment of outcomes and resources to deliver them

Small amount of clear KPIs

What does success look like? Not talking about social enterprise!

Be honest from the start about what you want the strategy to achieve

Not talking about another strategy, because not needed

Measure from the human side- as a person, what has the AP helped you to achieve?

Outcomes not needed!

What is success? growth? Sustainability?

Resilience- depth

Organisation at grass roots able to access resources (not just start-up but impact growth diversification resilience)

Impact at the grass roots inclusive growth

Outcomes measured via census data

The next generation inspired and engaged (linked locally)

Social Impact**

Address where there are cold spots of activity?

Social Enterprise becomes the norm

Profile- greater & broader awareness of business model

Social enterprise and the role in inclusive growth and sustainability of communities

Map social enterprises

Higher proportion of trading/ sustainability

Growth and depth larger part of the economy

Increased public awareness

Assessing how the action plan has addressed perennial challenges identified in census