Thanks both for the comments. Mike - thanks for that; makes v. good reading + much sense. I like the ready, fire, aim (aim better, fire better etc), and the point about reflection and action seems spot on to me. And one that, in our context, forms a crucial part of the approach. Adrian - I'll check this out. I actually quite like the principles behind the 'nudge' stuff (the book is interesting reading), and the insight into behaviours and influencing change.

Helpful point, David. I think it's about tapping into the potential that lies within communities, but not being averse to relevant outside help. As you say: it's about who's driving the change and who's facilitating / helping to accelerate it. Trish: I know what you're saying; London is characterised by areas of prosperity being next to areas of relative disadvantage. Indeed, our latest survey shows that 70% of SSE Fellows work in the 20% most deprived areas...worst may not be the right word, though I'm not sure 'strongest' is necessarily any more accurate. You're right that it's subjective too: one person's 'best' part of London is another person's 'worst' and vice versa....

Thanks for these comments, all. Geri - You are right on the control aspect: again, I think this will be a spectrum which varies depending on organisation / entrepreneur preferences, and the model itself: some happy to be more flexible, others requiring more control. Equally, I think creating a usable system or process for collating new innovations / improvements from the franchisees is really important. Adrian - Yes, am aware of Daily Bread etc, and of course the previous CAN programme (Owen Jarvis spoke about Aspire in our first block, and my CEO Alastair Wilson also attended Beanstalk...). Although I'm not sure that precludes CAN from being involved in (or calling it) a new initiative: the three organisations partnering in very practical ways on social franchising is new (neither our programme nor CAN's plans are Beanstalk reruns). Would be fascinated to see what your paper brings out if you can share that down the line (Owen, similarly, went on to do a masters thesis on social venture franchising, which I've shared with our participants). Which brings me to... Daniel - We will collate information, examples and learning from the programme Daniel. As you suggest, this approach won't be suitable to all social enterprise business models, but even relatively 'intangible' services (that don't involve a product, say) can be codified and replicated, if done well. Fast food may be the best known field for franchises, but they also exist in consultancy, estate agency, computing, healthcare, nurseries, training + development, music + theatre and many other areas. From our perspective, I think there's been a lot of talk and writing in this sector about replication and scaling (including by social franchising), but a lot less action; there are relatively few examples, with SSE itself being one. Our programme's about helping organisations implement, and to learn by doing as well as from the experience and expertise of others.

Fair cop, Servane! Just been trying to write this post for a while, but (somewhat ironically) haven't managed to find the time. So yes, Sunday night avoiding Downton Abbey seemed like as good a moment as any.... :0)

Thanks Mike - the best place to find these figures is chapter 11 of the last evaluation (which we published fully + publically and is still downloadable: http://www.sse.org.uk/_uploads/File/SSE%20Report%20041206.pdf). It features unit cost, survival rates (compared to govt. stats) and starts to look at the full financial and social return on that investment (of which survival rates are obviously only one metric). It's timely because, as mentioned above, we are currently engaged on doing the follow-up to the NEF report, which will look more closely at a full economic analysis of the impact of our work, and take attribution more fully into account. This will be published publicly and available before the end of the year. While it won't boil that entire impact down to one ratio figure (a la SROI), it should give a much fuller picture of the return which, like you, we want to know. Thanks for your continued interest.

And yes, it is a beautiful video. Kudos to Justine + friends.

For a brief fleeting moment, I thought it was going to be a wholly positive comment :0) To engage slightly more constructively, could you expand slightly? For example, - affordable: to whom? fees not a barrier to any students currently, or do you mean to funders / investors / others? cost:benefit? - accessible: in terms of time commitment, audience diversity, online:offline, location? this could mean lots of things - scaleable: we've franchised, and tried to do so in a non-London centric way; do you suggest other methods of scaling, different approaches etc or do you mean simply scaling the numbers / more programmes and support interventions? scale of impact is our driver Thanks as ever.....

Thanks David. As you say, offline conversations and exchanges and learning is crucial. And also support in using the tools, in implementing the methods. Not only is it about "what is the right thing at the moment?" or "what meets our needs right now?" or " what might solve this problem?" but also how do you go about it, who is best placed, who will lead it, how we will involve people and so on. To revert to your other metaphor, it's the big hearty meal and the nutrition for all that excites me!

Yes, I pretty much agree David; I've often said that we're not a panacea by any means. And I think your point about the necessary capacity (or lack of) is crucial, because I'm not sure any of us (or at least in sufficient numbers or scale) are set up for that at this point. That's presumably why other sector-heads keep talking about it being both a "challenge and an opportunity".

Yes, congrats to all Heather. Really enjoyed coming up. I think Tracey will have the Fife photos. All the ones from the Residential etc you can find via our Flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/socialentrepreneurs [look down the sets on the right hand side] Cheers

Yes, I don't necessarily disagree with that David. And Rod Schwartz makes a similar point over on his blog today as well. For me, the point I was trying to make was that if you compared these manifestos to the ones thirteen years ago (or further back), then I do think it's good that there is recognition in here. I think any organisation that is looking to the public sector to sustain it solely at present is a short-sighted one, and the private sector has a big role to play as well. But in partnerships + contracts with both sectors, it is about the social entrepreneurs deciding when to play and when not to: what opportunities are aligned with their mission and which are others' agendas. Strong, confident, skilled social entrepreneurs + teams can make those kind of judgements in the public sector market and private sector market alike (and, indeed, in the 'third sector market' such as there is). On motivations, it's very hard to know. I think your call on it being somewhere in between is fairly accurate: I've long called for more reality, less rhetoric so the social enterprise movement doesn't overpromise + retains credibility, so that it's not viewed as a panacea. But we also believe in its ability to solve some of those problems, don't we? And we have a role to ensure it is coherently understood + credibly delivered, regardless of sector. I have to say, I'm with you on the scepticism about spin-outs. Not that it's not a viable option at times in some areas, but I think the motivation has to come from the individual or group of individuals, not a top-down insistence: where right-to-request has worked, it's because of the (small numbers of) entrepreneurial individuals and groups within the public sector who drove and led the change. And they've needed (and need) support and advice and networking through that process. Where it is motivated by top-down commissioning by structure or, as was said at a recent Ministry of Justice conference, to "access grants" or, indeed, suggested to "enforced career changers", it's not going to work.

Thanks Karim. Emma, also from Twitter... - Habitat for Humanity was suggested by Marie Millward - Foodcycle suggested MealExchange (http://www.mealexchange.com/) Hope that's of some help...

Hi Emma - not off-hand. We're hoping to come to Canada shortly, so hopefully we will be a social franchise in Canada (though possibly not BC to start with). I've put this out on Twitter to see if anyone has any ideas....

Thanks Martin for your comment. Couldn't agree more. What we at SSE, UnLtd and the other organisations have in common, as you say, is a genuine belief that social entrepreneurship can transform those normally viewed as 'beneficiaries' into potential leaders. With support from the movement and government, we're hugely excited by the possibilities.

Do you think the barrier is that there aren't appropriate tools + ways, Rob? Or is it more about people building it into what they do? Is the problem the tools, or lack of awareness / putting it into practice? (or are the tools the reason people aren't putting it into practice) I think peer review is an interesting approach (one we've thought about in relation to quality auditing our franchises, for example), but would it, when it comes to the crunch, have the necessary credibility with funders, investors, stakeholders of all types? Not sure. Perhaps it would be a good step towards more formal evaluation.

Worth reflecting on Michael Young's Rise of Meritocracy in this context. As the Wikipedia article notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy), the term was "intended to be perjorative" and the book was set in a "dystopian future", not a utopian one. It was meant satirically. Needless to say, politicians since have adopted it in a positive light. Indeed, Labour have promoted it as a main objective. Worth checking out: - Michael Young on why he wishes Tony Blair would stop using the word (in 2001): http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment - The Rise + Rise of Meritocracy: essays via the Young Foundation http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/books/the-rise-and-rise-meritocracy Cheers

Thanks for the comments, David + Simon. David: I think this is a really interesting point. You're right, I think, because we talk a lot about motivation + intention, but sometimes good intentions lead to negative outcomes, or at least what other people perceive as negative outcomes. Iraq is arguably a microcosm of that where Blair is concerned. Simon: The Pope sounds like a wise choice... You're right, of course, both in terms of traditional business (having social impact) and in terms of consistent metrics. The SROI lot are doing their utmost to achieve some sort of consistency, but it's a long road (though I guess the same was true of financial / economic metrics too). Others might say that all businesses should have to measure + communicate their social impact / bottom line. As Liam Black and others have pointed out, they'll probably do it better. Also largely agree on social enterprise. For us it's about entrepreneurship for social benefit regardless of where or in what (legal) form this is happening, and particularly from those who are traditionally viewed as 'beneficiaries'. But that's just one take on it, and it's a spectrum, rather than a set of easily defined and separated boxes. It surely has to be what we do, not what we call it, that's important.

Thanks for commenting Mike. I'm also not especially bothered what he calls himself, either: what I thought was interesting about Rod's piece was that he DID take it seriously, and thought about what that meant. And both he and I do ask about his intentions and efficacy as part of what makes a social entrepreneur (see motivation / impact as two of the points above). I don't particularly care what he does with his profits, but I do care about his intentions. I don't confuse risk with entrepreneurship, IMHO, but risk, responsibility and undertaking an initiative are part of entrepreneurship; as are, depending on who you ask, innovation, commitment, resourcefulness, persistence, vision and so forth. And being resourceful (or open to opportunity) means they spot good deals and take them, as you say ("hence, few would balk at..."). Risk awareness and management is something we talk about a lot here. As for the other stuff, I generally think we agree on this stuff. Anyone who reads this blog knows that SSE has said consistently that it's not about structures, percentages of profits, or what you call yourself. But it is about mission + motivation, impact, quality and transparency. Couldn't agree more. As for us? Well, we're pretty open about what we try and do with early-stage, start-up social entrepreneurs. And about how we measure it, and about the results. So people can make their own judgements on the past 12 years. We're far from a panacea, and far from getting everything right. And also not right for everyone. And success looks different for different people on the programme: some gain confidence, self-awareness, skills + networks that allow them to achieve in other aspects of work + life; for others, their organisation takes off, grows and delivers real economic + social impact (and real devolution of power); others still realise it's not for them. Which is equally a good outcome (though not a fundable output, as you note). To be honest, your post here (http://localenterprise.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/enterprise-community-and-complexity/) describes as well as anything what underpins our approach and what we (might) consider success.

Yes, agreed, agreed, agreed in a warm-Christmassy type of way. Thanks for prompting this all Rob (and Liam). Will do our bit to make Voice a place of reality and relevance, not rhetoric. On which note, back to work....

Would agree on the need to prove viability. As often mentioned here, there's a reason we're not the School for Social Enterprise...because we belive it's horses for courses in terms of models fit to achieving a mission. And have always been against overclaiming / overpromising, + the gap between rhetoric + reality. And I agree on the need for new (radical) innovations that game-change, alongside the combined impact of smaller interventions (as Geof points out, Social Firms are a good example). I think the point about toeing the line re. government money is probably a fair one; don't know if that's true for us...I guess others can judge. I think we've been quieter this year largely because of doubling the number of social entrepreneurs we've been supporting across the UK. I hope there are some mini-Yunuses amongst them. There's also a reason why in a team of 11 (and 20+ in franchises), we only have half a policy person... On government, I just think it's a bit more nuanced. Obviously a business that relies on long-term, continual subsidy to function isn't a functioning business. But cutting yourself off from government altogether seems too dogmatic / black and white. You could even argue it's un-entrepreneurial to cut off one resource completely. And how far do you go? Ignoring local government contracts? Not taking an UnLtd Level 1 to get going (seeing as it was Millennium Commission money from government originally)? Not taking advice from Business Link (Ok, maybe that's OK)? Not taking a loan to kick-off from RBS? Surely any conversation about government subsidy has to now be in the context of the £130bn+ used to bail out the banks? Which is bigger spending than any government department.....Also, surely every funder or investor has outcomes, monitoring, bureaucracy, agendas; government might have more, but it's classic 'hold to the mission' stuff regardless. The final thing is that government is still a machine to achieve big-scale social change. I know this is somewhat off the point about subsidising social enterprise (but we largely all agree about that), but feels relevant to the discussion nonetheless. Even after all his achievements, Yunus still toyed with politics (floating a new political party etc) to make change. And government policy continues to shape the reality on the ground for businesses and organisations of all types.

Thanks for taking the time to post during a hectic time, Liam. It's been interesting following from here. You know already that I agree with a fair amount of what you say: learning by doing is what this space is all about; definition debates just drain energy away from delivery; accept it's a (non-linear) journey; cut across and partner with all sectors; and it also takes time and persistence. I'm with David on the reality of starting up, but also disagree on what you say about the impact of those "nice but marginal" small social enterprises you refer to. All our research demonstrates that the impact of 'small-scale' social entrepreneurs is underestimated, as there is a huge ripple effect from the job creation, volunteer position creation, inspiration to community, better services / goods, associated effects on families, children, relationships, health etc etc. One person can end up changing the lives of hundreds, or thousands with a 'small' venture. So it's obvious what hundreds and thousands of those small ventures can do. Clearly we do need big-scale solutions (and I do note that it's the paucity of ideas you are highlighting), but making scale part of what this movement is about means that you exclude; you end up in Skoll-world or Ashoka-ville where either you're a Yunus or you're not welcome. Which means a) potentially missing finding the next Yunus and b) missing out on the chance to inspire and involve and change the mindsets of whole swathes of people who might make smaller-scale change. Aggregating those many smaller-scale changes reaches big-scale. It's not an either-or, of course: we need both. But the answers rarely lie down one route only, be that government or private business. It is, as you say, much messier than that.

It's true about the optimism, Rob: we find that in our surveys as well. I asked about 400 SSE and UnLtd soc ents about how the current economic climate had affected them, and it had strengthened their resolve and they were MORE optimistic. I don't know whether that's about feeling that traditional economy has failed (therefore our time has come) or whether it's the passionate / purposeful streak that marks them out...or maybe I'm just a lot more cyncial and jaded. I couldn't agree more with Liam about critique as well: constructive criticism and learning from mistakes is the only way we get better. There's an interesting post on it here which, although largely about US / philanthropy, is relevant: http://bit.ly/7aPfZ0 Like you Rob, I often get the best responses to the most challenging, honest posts, as does Rod Schwartz. Personally, I think social entrepreneurs build legitimacy, trust and credibility through authenticity and transparency and proving the quality/impact of what they do. And that transparency is at least partly about honesty about what's gone well and not gone well. The same is surely true for the movement as a whole.

You know I agree with you Rob, and I agree that we need to learn from things when they go wrong: it's what our whole programme is based on (learning by doing). Not that that means we always do it brilliantly ourselves. I'd only say that it does seem that the Coalition can be a bit damned if they do and damned if they don't. People (including me) say "it's all rhetoric, no reality", so they commission a survey + research, publish the findings, and people say "it's not comprehensive enough" or "you're highlighting the good stuff only". Both of those might have some truth, but it's got to be a step in the right direction surely (evidence-based)? It is bloody hard, and I'm constantly amazed by the people we work with who do it and make it work. Let's challenge each other, learn and critique, but, as you say, not fall to finger-pointing and (only the bad news) sniping.

I hope that "detiorate" was deliberate, Liam! Can only agree, as I said in a recent comment here, Rob. Impact, impact, impact....it's a bottom line as well as the one with pound signs against it. FRC were truly impressive at Good Deals and have sent me back to SSE's processes to see what we can improve (aka "lots"). Interested on the PwC / private companies point. I guess one thing to that might be "wouldn't that be welcome?" (that they prove and improve their social impact). For me, the additional point would be that the fairness or levelness of the playing field, as with advocacy and lobbying, tends to be as much about scale of organisation, rather than type of. Who'll have the budgets to do it best? But that's no excuse for not doing it at all, and for wanting the agenda to come in that direction.