Thanks for the comment. You are partially correct in your conclusions.

Yes, many of the organisations we are working with do not see themselves as creating new social firms in the immediate term, and are more comfortable with the idea of turning an acquired private business into the more broader defined social enterprises. That said, many of these organisations are already providing employment and training opportunities for disadvantaged people in their communities but never saw themselves as being social firms.

We have seen that most social enterprises once they are starting to seriously trade and ‘do business’, automatically see the generation of employment as a useful way of using this economic power. It is very often people on the fringes of the labour market who need some support getting back into work that is their focus, but only if the acquired business has room for growth. This would include the social firm ‘target employees’ of ex-offenders, long term unemployed, people with a disability and people recovering from mental illness.

In addition, many of the businesses we are working with operate within very remote, rural communities where protecting jobs for local people and helping as many people in rural communities to remain living and working within their community (regardless of their ‘disadvantages’) is just part of the way they do business. These businesses are often in danger of just closing down when the owners finally retire, often in their seventies or later. The idea of buying these businesses and protecting jobs, opportunities and important local services, fits neatly into the aims of development trusts, community organisations and development groups. And these groups actively seek to provide employment and opportunities for people who might not get them otherwise, including the severely disadvantaged. They just don’t see it as being social firms, just as the way they work.

So yes we are not tying the organisations we support into creating social firms, but we are seeing jobs being protected and often created for people with all levels of abilities and disadvantages, and we are seeing new jobs and training opportunities being created and planned within and as a result of acquiring the private businesses.

All organisations who use the deal support process join Social Firms Scotland, and many of them find our resources useful, particularly those relating to ensuring empowerment and a supportive working environment. Even just the support to employ people well is helpful, after all employment is what we have been working with more than any other support agency. Some of them might even now say they are social firms.

At a board strategy away day a few years ago, Social Firms Scotland was asked ‘What would constitute success for the organisation?’. We concluded that perhaps when so many businesses automatically provided supportive work environments for the severely disadvantaged that social firms were not the exception. The Acquiring Business 4 Good programme has helped us reach and engage many more private businesses and social enterprises with our values of ‘Employment, Empowerment and Enterprise’ taking us a step closer to achieving this ultimate success.

Karen

Am I right in thinking that the original focus on conversion to social firms – leading to the employment of significant numbers of people with disabilities – has been abandoned, in favour of a broader social enterprise focus?

If so I think this is wise; while the thousands of successful staff and community buy-outs prove that conversions to social enterprise work well where there is a ready natural constituency, the idea of buying out a business that already has its own staff and community, in order to use it to employ a different group of people, always seemed to me wrong-headed.

The key question for the disability charity I advised not to do it, of course, was not whether it could be done, but whether the resources it would require could be better applied to other targets.