I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the debate now “raging” between social enterprise bodies and the health secretary. Social enterprise is becoming a dogmatic cult that is insisting upon a particular definition in order to legitimise its very existence. Ok, maybe it’s not that bad…but, people are wasting time arguing about what is a social enterprise and what is not. The latest debate appears to hinge on independence of an organisation from the government. Interestingly, I bet 50% of social enterprises have local authorities or other government organisations (i know the government and local authority are two different things….ease up!) on the board, controlling the board, or provide more than 50% of the revenue stream and use this influence to manage the social enterprise. So what exactly is the argument against a former part of the NHS being called a social enterprise?
I have a better idea. Let’s take all the energy wasted in this definition of a social enterprise circus and focus it on building or amplifying amazing social enterprises small and large across the country. That’s how you define your patch: make something happen.
Related posts:
I generally agree that this dispute over language, like disputes over structures generally, is unhelpful and not addressing the real issues of innovation and impact.
However, language does matter. Particularly in political debate. The fear, rightly I think, in the sector is that the government is using ’social enterprise’ as something that sounds warm and fluffy to push through a right-wing privatisation agenda that seeks to aggressively attack the foundations of our welfare state.
Time will tell what the true intentions of the government are, but I think it is right for people to be wary.