Then up the ante on community engagement and decision making

Opening out and digging deep

When we come together in facilitated meetings, citizens’ assemblies or community engagement ‘consultations’, often only certain voices are heard; perhaps the loudest, the majority, the ‘community leader’, or the voices the facilitator favours. Other voices at the margins that may differ from the majority or have conflicting views, go unheard. However, including all views may well lead towards futures that are preferable to the narrower ones many of us currently contemplate. Engagement and decision making needs to open out and include all voices.

In this era of increasingly polarised views, people who offer unpopular or alternative perspectives are often bullied or ‘trolled’. We are even exhorted from the top to be ‘quiet Australians’. This has the effect of making people reluctant to be different and flows down through workplaces, local councils, community groups etc.  Superficial discussion, simplistic arguments or passive agreements have become the norm. So, engagement activities need to dig deeper, way down to the beliefs and the stories underlying the situation.

Enriching possible futures through ‘opening out’

Instead of seeing them as problematic, we can welcome conflicting views and include the marginalised, the powerful, and all those in-between. By giving everyone a voice, we can ‘think outside the box’ and embrace richer perspectives. Such expansion is not possible where we all share similar views, follow ‘the leader’, feel pressure or be too shy to voice an alternative or unpopular view. This expansion is the starting point of opening out.

Certainly, working with conflicting viewpoints is not easy. The facilitator requires experience and expertise in applying the process. Tips include working toward developing expertise before including some participants who may be seen as adversaries. Also, enabling guidelines to be developed by the group sets the tone, and reminds people that this is a place for respectful debate.

Deepening discussions – reflecting on our worldviews and stories

Opening out is not enough by itself. There is also a need to dig deeper with our discussions. While we are quick to offer an opinion, analysis is often thin on the ground.

Here’s a real-life example of exploring the process of opening out and digging deep. In a workshop setting, the discussion topic was the potential for unconventional gas exploration and extraction (the most well-known being ‘fracking’) in the South West Coast District, Victoria, Australia. Participants from the region held a range of views. The workshop began with small groups where everyone ‘tried on’ different views, discussing and becoming more familiar with the similarities and differences of their own views and values compared with others in the group.

Questions to further prompt reflection

Bringing the group together the facilitator asked a series of questions linked to each level, (see diagram) beginning with the present and leading to a future ‘dream situation’.

Source: Inayatullah, S. (2017). Causal Layered Analysis, Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox. Futuribles International, 1-21.

The facilitator asked participants:

  1.  ’What do you see, what is spoken about, what is published when      you look at the energy situation?’ This is the most superficial visible level, such as statistical data and newspaper headlines.
  2. ’What is the cause of this situation?’ This is the factual level that includes systemic causes.
  3. ‘What beliefs are causing this to happen? (you may have to step out of your own beliefs here)’. This level taps into participants’ values as reflected at level 2, to identify worldviews. These may be dominated by economic, social and/or environmental concerns.
  4. ’Is there a suitable metaphor or myth to help us understand why we behave the way we do in creating the situation we are in?’ and ‘what is a suitable metaphor or myth to describe a future ‘dream’ situation?’ This level goes deeply into the underlying story.

As the workshop advances, moving to the ‘dream situation’ and identifying a new myth or metaphor is vital to creating a new story as a foundation for change. For example, the group might identify the current metaphor as ‘be careful what you grow in the shadows’ and a new metaphor as ‘turn on the light’. The group then works back up the levels. These processes can contribute to decision making by progressing to the identification of preferred future scenarios and strategies for their achievement.

My aim in providing this summary is to encourage a grasp of the practice, although of course, it is best to ‘learn by doing’. You will probably have some concerns and questions. I briefly tackle two such questions next but feel free to voice your thoughts, positive and otherwise via my email details.

Question – For this practice to be effective, there needs to be power-sharing. Why would the powerful share their power?  Why would corporations and organisations (including charities and social enterprises) relinquish some of their power?

Response – Public trust in organisations has been badly shaken lately. Many need to build or repair trust. The pressure to be accountable is increasing. Add to this the financial and reputational cost of conflict to organisations and they may well become more receptive to democratic approaches to engagement and decision-making. Failing adequate responses to this need to ‘wake up’, a series of collapses may make them increasingly receptive to alternative future pathways. Unfortunately, it is not at all difficult to envisage collapses due, for example, to climate change.

Question – What about the facts?

Response – Facts are vital and are identified in level 2 as the systemic causes of an issue. Values also play a crucial role in the way facts are received. Division about the facts of climate change is a case in point.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/not-everyone-cares-about-climate-change-but-reproach-wont-change-their-minds-118255

Although successfully applied nationally and internationally, it is relatively early days in the development of this futures-oriented engagement practice called Causal Layered Analysis (CLA). The practice both progresses democratisation and engages the imagination in identifying alternative possibilities and strategies. Today, applying innovative new methods and imaginings is key in transitioning towards a preferable future.

Marcelle Holdaway (marcelle4487@gmail.com)

Marcelle describes her values as revolving around equity, empowerment and healing ourselves and the world around us. These values have consistently informed her professional and personal objectives of lifting the bar on matters social and environmental. As an active practitioner, including having had close ties with SAN, she has spent the past 4 years completing a PhD concerning her practice area. Marcelle’s thesis explored a practice-base for democratizing stakeholder engagement by corporations; a practice base also applicable to a wide range of organizations and situations.
Marcelle currently holds the position of Adjunct Fellow  Accountability and Sustainability,  University of the Sunshine Coast within the School of Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland.

The importance of ownership in understanding social enterprise

I want to destroy ownership in order that possession and enjoyment may be raised to the highest point in every section of the community.
George Bernard Shaw

Over the years there has been a considerable amount of time and energy spent on discussing social enterprise – what it is, what it could be, what impact it has.  At times this has been quite a creative and stimulating experience, while at other times it has been negative and tiresome.

In all these discussions, I believe, not enough emphasis has been laid on ownership.  Who owns these social enterprises and are they accountable not only to themselves but also to the wider public?  Accountability is going to become more and more important for social enterprises as they take on public and community sector contracts and have to account for their actions to a variety of different stakeholders.

With private corporations, ownership is often a slippery beast.  The ownership of the ‘means of production’ can be difficult to determine as it is, at times, not fully declared – but is often the key to understanding why an organisation acts in the way it does.

Andy Wightman in his recent research and writings illustrates this in the following paragraph which refers to land specifically, but also can be extended to property and the ‘means of production’:

Land is about power.  It is about how power is derived, defined, distributed and exercised.  It always has been and it still is thanks to a legal system that has historically been constructed and adapted to protect the interests of private property.  ‘The Poor Had No Lawyers’ by Andy Wightman

Guy Shrubsole in his recent book, Who Owns England, writes that less than one per cent of the population owns about half of England and Wales.  This cannot be right if we are trying to create a fairer more equal society.

Faced with these glaring inequalities, perhaps the only way to fully understand them is to go back into history and trace the threads that lead us to where we are now.  Thus, indulge my historical and simplistic foraging…

Before capitalism, there was a feudal system in the UK where a reigning monarch could grant whole tracts of land along with a title as a reward to the aristocracy for some form of favour.  This ownership of land meant money could be made and inequality could persist – land being the primary source of wealth.

At the time of the British Empire, European imperialists conquered foreign lands and introduced a form of ownership applying European laws – in effect taking control of whole areas through the ownership of land.  As an aside, many tribes in Africa could not get their heads around the ownership of land as it was a concept that challenged their existing value system – land to grow crops, air to breathe, panoramic beauty where all things that existed for all the people and, prior to colonisation, could not be owned in our sense of the word.

In Victorian times ownership and property became all-important causing increased social and economic inequality as ownership of property would be passed on within families.  In fact, those not owning property were excluded from voting, which reinforces Wightman’s comments cited above.

In the mid-19th century, the co-operative movement emerged as a way that goods and services could be produced for the benefit of the workers and the wider community, not just the factory owners.  Workers co-operatives were created so that they themselves owned the means of production.

In the last two centuries, many voluntary organisations and charities adopted a form of ‘trust’ where ownership was not held by an individual or indeed a group of people.  Rather, those organisations were run and managed by ‘stewards’ operating in the best interests of the organisation to provide maximum benefit to beneficiaries.  A similar structure was adopted by many housing associations.

In the 1970s, Community Co-operatives were established in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland responding to negative economic factors – such as depopulation, dwindling services and a lack of employment opportunities. This model was largely copied by Community Businesses – functioning business enterprises that were owned and controlled by local people for the benefit of those living in local communities.  In these cases, ownership of the business was held by the ‘community’ and not by individuals.

This now brings us to the current situation with social enterprises.  They are not public sector organisations, nor are they part of the private sector where individuals own organisations or companies.  Social enterprises sit somewhere between these two much larger sectors – and this, I would argue, is why ownership of a social enterprise is key to our overall understanding of what is and what is not a social enterprise.

Yvon Poirier, a French-Canadian pioneer within the social economy, explains the origins of the term ‘social enterprise’ stating that its meaning originally…

relates exclusively to the type of ownership. By ‘social’, one means that the ownership is by humans (persons) and not by shareholders
Social Economy and Related Concepts Paper, 2012

He then goes on to explain that in the 1990s the term ‘social enterprise’ – particularly in the English-speaking world, took on a totally different meaning. The term ‘social’ in recent times has come to mean the purpose or sector of activity and not the ownership of the enterprise. 

This shift in meaning is significant as the end result of social enterprise activity has become more important than the type of organisation they are.  This has led to current thinking which stresses the dominance of social impact over how that impact is delivered and crucially linked to this, the ownership of the organisation.

In trying to understand the creation and evolution of social enterprise, we have become too bogged down in what a social enterprise does and what impact it claims. We are guilty of overlooking the issue of ownership and this is a situation I feel needs addressing.

In response to the ownership of a social enterprise, some activists have stressed the need for an ‘asset lock’.  This ensures that individuals do not, and will not, benefit directly from their involvement in the enterprise.  In a way, this skirts around the central issue which is about who owns the enterprise – indeed, who owns and thus controls, the means of production.  Ownership, in my view, should be more central to our understanding.

Many organisations that claim to be social enterprises are up-front about their social impact credentials, hoping that no-one will look too closely at the ownership of their enterprise. Of course, those private sector businesses with strong Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) statements should be applauded – particularly if they genuinely report on what social benefits they provide and do not only use it as a marketing tool.

However, praising these private businesses for their CSR reporting does not qualify them as a ‘social enterprise’.  In my view, a social or community enterprise is about collective ownership maximising benefit to a wider society.

When thinking about social enterprises, the first questions to ask are, who owns it and what is the ownership structure.  This will help in understanding where that organisation is coming from and why it is acting in that particular way.  The key issue around ownership is whether or not the social enterprise is acting in a way that maximises social or community benefit, or is acting solely in the interest of the owners.

Collective ownership operating on behalf of a wider community ensuring future sustainability to benefit society has to be preferred to privately owned businesses masquerading as social enterprises.

In fact, I would go further.  I believe that all organisations that have a central social or community purpose should keep regular and transparent social accounts.  These ‘accounts’ should affirm the key things about the organisation, including ownership, and at the same time provide an indication of the social and community impact backed up by evidence.

And going even further, I believe that in order to give social reports integrity, they should be subject to an independent audit.  For information on a practical way forward, see www.socialauditnetwork.org.

You will have noticed the George Bernard Shaw quote at the start of this blog.  He used the word ‘destroy’ which indicates fairly drastic action.  What he is arguing for is the destruction of ‘private ownership’ as opposed to ‘collective’ or ‘communal ownership’ so that owning things and living contented lives is not in the hands of the few for their own purposes but is shared by the many for everyone’s benefit.

Alan Kay, April 2019

Alan was one of the original founders of the Social Audit Network (SAN) which encourages social and community organisations to keep regular social accounts and have them independently audited – www.socialauditnetwork.org.
Alan is retired but during his working life, he had more than 35 years of experience in community development and social enterprise sector in the UK and overseas. Alan’s background was in overseas development. Since returning to Scotland in 1988 he mainly worked with community-owned enterprises and social enterprises.  He remains loosely attached to Glasgow Caledonian University as a Senior Visiting Fellow of the Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health.
Email: alan.kay20@gmail.com or alan.kay@gcu.ac.uk



Social investment and the eradication of poverty

The Social Metrics Commission recently issued the report on their work to measure poverty in a more meaningful way. They estimate that 14.2 million people in the UK live in poverty, including 4.5 million children. These stats are shocking and underline the vital role of so much of the charity sector and social economy, working in many ways to address the root causes or the effects of poverty.

Big Society Capital (BSC) believe that social investment (i.e. repayable finance used to create impact) can be (a small) part of the solution alongside the social economy sector’s other funding sources. Money provided upfront by social investors is used by social enterprises and charities to finance income-generating models so that they are able to make a greater difference in addressing poverty.

Continue reading Social investment and the eradication of poverty

SAN Presents… understanding poverty

‘Facts alone don’t change how people think… We need to understand how people think about poverty and why… Our society’s shared values can help build support to solve UK poverty’
Joseph Rowntree Foundation[1]

The true purpose of ‘charity’ is to tackle poverty and disadvantage. That’s what charities and other social purpose organisations do – address inequality, help people who are less fortunate, and protect, campaign and lobby on their behalf. Arguably, what is variously referred to as responsible or purposeful business, or even social value, will include actions to tackle poverty.

To truly understand poverty, and the outcomes and impact in terms of how an organisation’s actions are tackling poverty, we need to hear the views of stakeholders who are in poverty… including those in need, but also the people who donate, who invest, who collect intelligence, and who work to tackle poverty in all its forms.

We need to understand the forms of poverty. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has described, poverty is not only about not having enough money – it’s about not having enough food, poor housing and heating, poor wellbeing, and a poor environment to live in.

We also need to learn from the intelligence available from research, case studies and reports drawn together to inform our planning, decision-making and investment.

…and we really need to give ‘value’ – meaning and worth – to the work that we are doing to tackle poverty.

The Social Audit Network has 8 Principles[2] for social accounting and audit:

  • Clarify Purpose
  • Define Scope
  • Engage Stakeholders
  • Determine Materiality
  • Make Comparisons (benchmarking)
  • Be Transparent
  • Verify Accounts
  • Embed the process

These principles are all based in creating a logical and consistent approach to collecting and using data as part of an organisation’s arrangements for understanding and reporting on addressing social deprivation and its social impact.

On 17th October, SAN Presents… an exploration of poverty in the eyes of a range of stakeholders, including Big Lottery, Big Society Capital, WOCAN, the 2030 Hub, the Universities of Huddersfield and Salford, Halton CAB and the Bolton Social Business Collective.

And across 3 aspects of poverty – food, social wellbeing and money.

Taking inspiration from the work of the JRF, and also the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, we will explore how following the SAN principles and embedding social accounting into your organisation’s work can help your social economy organisation get to grips with robustly reporting on the effort to tackle poverty.

We will also explore an international dimension with the help of WOCAN; Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, a women-led international membership network of women and men professionals and women’s associations.

The event also coincides with the 26th anniversary of the UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Book your place now to join in the debate!

SAN presents… Understanding Poverty

The Social Audit Network’s Annual Gathering

Wednesday 17th October 2018

54 St James Street, Liverpool. L1 0AB


Social Accounting and Audit allows social economy organisations to build on existing monitoring, documentation and reporting systems to develop a process to account fully for social, environmental and economic impacts, report on performance and draw up action plans to improve on that performance. Through this process, an organisation can understand its impact on the surrounding community and build a role as a catalyst for tackling poverty.

Anne Lythgoe

[1] https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/talking-about-poverty-uk-what-works

[2] http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/getting-started/what-is-social-accounting-and-audit/

A Problem Shared is a Problem Halved

“There are always two people in every picture, the photographer and the viewer” Ansel Adams.

At Give2Gain, in Stockport, we offer a range of networking meetings and workshops that promote local cross sector relationship building. We are big fans of the stakeholder experience. As we account for the social good we believe we provide, the process is brought alive by the role our stakeholders play in exploring information and testing assumptions. Continue reading A Problem Shared is a Problem Halved

social accounting, social audit, social value, social impact