Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


Your browser is not accepting cookies. This means means you will have to log in each time you visit the site.
For the best experience of, please enable cookies.

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

How the government can promote the value of social enterprise


Social enterprises must be dealt a fair hand, says Ross Griffiths.

In January, Noel Plumridge outlined the challenges facing new social enterprises, warning that “the odds are not in their favour in a cut-throat market”.

To a certain extent, he is absolutely right. Social enterprises do not have the capital of the large corporate, or the foundation trust’s advantage of not charging VAT, which makes every action a greater challenge and a greater strain on resources. 

However, the situation is certainly less grim than that portrayed and there is certainly much that could be done to stimulate employee ownership.

We should begin by examining the VAT “inequity” that Mr Plumridge describes.  There is no denying that this disadvantage exists; however, this should not mean that social enterprises should give up immediately.  The issue requires detailed analysis to see how the hit affects the cost of doing business – for starters, the 20 per cent rate will not apply to everything. 

It is easy to dismiss accountants’ warnings and commentary on the subject as merely designed to drum up business, but many will find a real advantage in visiting an expert to see how the business could be structured to minimise the impact.

The next problem to be tackled is that of assets. Social enterprises would like to be able to hold assets to boost their worth and to be able to access greater funding from lenders. However, whether the social enterprise actually needs this level of working capital depends entirely on the business that it undertakes. 

A little extra cash in the bank is, of course, a nice thing to have, but a wages-based operation will generally not need as much as one that is involved in purchasing, for example, and the absence of a capital asset such as premises ought not to be something that automatically thwarts the ability of a social enterprise to trade. 

Social enterprises are trading in services delivered by people to people, so there may not even be a need for offices or premises, particularly given the movement in the health sector towards service delivery closer to home.

It is also worth remembering that the future will involve trading in a commissioner’s market, and the commissioner should have a hold over the assets from which services are delivered. When the contract for a high street clinic comes to an end, for example, shouldn’t those who are commissioning its services have access to that estate, given that they are responsible for planning it? And one of the unwelcome consequences of having assets available is that you have to pay for them if anything goes wrong or if changes need to be made; as a licensee, the responsibility is likely to lie elsewhere.

There is every reason to believe that these issues could be overcome, but social enterprises will need more support. The current incentives to promote social enterprises are being handled in a very “governmental” way, attempting to level the playing field by encouraging commissioners to look more favourably on such organisations as providers of services and to take a more studious approach to the public procurement regime.

Currently, the default position is that commissioners must go out to tender, and it makes better economic sense to do this on a large scale, which means social enterprises will often find themselves excluded. Commissioners may need to be encouraged to be more sympathetic to social enterprises when they are parcelling up the work, and to operate on a value rather than a price basis when accepting tenders.

This is happening in various places and to an extent in the health sector where it is possible to adopt a longer-term approach to valuing what a social enterprise brings to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area.  It is worth recognising the fact that those who are employed by the social enterprise are more likely to be within the area, thus sustaining spending power within the community rather than leaking profits to investors outside the patch.

The government could also encourage commissioners to take into account the statistical evidence pointing towards higher levels of productivity and employee and customer satisfaction in employee-owned businesses, particularly when compared to the public sector and to large corporates. 

There is a case to be heard that such social enterprises can offer both higher operational efficiency and higher quality, and it would be wrong to dismiss their potential due to disadvantages that could almost certainly be minimised by a government committed to promoting their value.


Readers' comments (2)

  • Blair Mcpherson

    The third sector and social enterprises are just pale imitators of the real thing. The Government has been promoting the role of the voluntary, community and faith sector in health and social care and championing social enterprises as an alternative to the Public Sector. Voluntary, community and faith – referred to as the third sector is attractive because such organisations are not motivated by profit and so the Government escapes the accusation of privatisation. The trouble is, by their nature, such organisations are small, operate on the good will of volunteers and are not businesslike. Or they are like housing associations – big, professional and not-for-profit but operating like private sector organisations not accountable to local people and frequently not recognising trade unions.
    Social enterprises are seen as offering the best of both worlds: the businesslike approach and professionalism of the not-for-profit sector coupled with the commitment to local communities and the social motivation of the voluntary, community and faith sector. A social enterprise operates like a business but employs local people including a high proportion of people with a disability or people who have been long-term unemployed. Employees have a say in how the business operates and this is reflected in the management style and there is a genuine commitment as oppose to a PR exercise to help improve the local community.
    But isn't that exactly what the Public Sector was all about before it was told to get competitive and adopt private sector ways and the private sector language of the customers choice and performance. Local authority public services have always been accountable to local people; there has always been a commitment to supporting local communities; there has always been a desire to be a model employer and the motivation has always been to benefit local people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Really good analysis, Blair. Completely agree with the conclusion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

terms and conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.