[This post was written for the UnLtdWorld Shout Out for Social Enterprise series]

There are
big problems in the UK and in the rest of the world: social and environmental
needs and challenges that are not currently being met adequately or, in some
cases, at all. So it seems obvious that to meet these big problems we need big
solutions and big scale organisations and projects that can change things for
the better.

And there are amazing examples of extraordinary social entrepreneurs establishing such
organisations: Muhammad Yunus (Grameen); Fazle Abed (BRAC); John Bird (Big
Issue); Michael Young (Open University / Which Magazine); Ann Cotton (CAMFED) and countless others. And you
can find countless more via the websites of Ashoka, Schwab, Skoll and others. We should
recognise, support and be inspired by their work.

But we
should also not necessarily use them as a template or blueprint, or fetishize
scale itself. Why? For a number of reasons.

1) Firstly, what is important is the scale
of impact and
change made, not the scale of individual organisation or scale of budget;
well-focused advocacy can change policies affecting the lives of millions; an
open-sourced solution can spread change more rapidly than a heavily controlled
one; a franchise operation can fit local and regional needs more closely, and
avoid reinventing the wheel. Social entrepreneurship should not be about
empire-building.

2) Secondly, scale
is not part of what makes a social entrepreneur (despite what is said here;
check the comments!); the vast majority of social entrepreneurs start
locally with a small-scale or niche
problem, and are content to create a solution that solves it in a sustainable
way. Just as in the commercial world, a few have the capacity, willingness and
ambition to replicate and scale and grow their organisation; but there’s
nothing wrong with those who don’t. Using scale as a part of what defines a
social entrepreneur is only serving to create an exclusive, elitist, MBA-heavy
cadre, not an inclusive, diverse and accessible movement.

3)Thirdly, small-scale
makes business and social sense. In the
commercial world, we might spend most of our time talking about entrepreneurs
like Richard Branson, Stelios, or Alan Sugar, but 97% of UK businesses employ
less than 20 people (and 95% employ less than 5 people), 64% of commercial
innovations come from small firms, and businesses with under 50 employees
contribute over half of UK turnover (FSB statistics).
Why should this be any different with social entrepreneurs, particularly when
their reason for starting (and motivation for continuing) is often a local /
personal one? And imagine those statistics translated into social, rather than
commercial, innovation and social impact instead of turnover.

4) Fourthly, the more who get involved, the better. Not only because “many social entrepreneurs x small impact = large-scale impact”
as surely as “few social entrepreneurs x big impact = large-scale impact” (as complex as my maths gets; see here for more); and not only because we need more innovations, not fewer. But also
because social entrepreneurs, whether they are in school, career-changing,
long-term unemployed, a refugee or a new graduate, gain skills, confidence and
networks through the process of
setting up a project or organisation. So it’s not just about what their
organisation does and delivers, but also about their development as future
employees, entrepreneurs, representatives and leaders.

5) Fifthly, replication and scaling
is tough, and
people often underestimate how tough it is (I know that SSE did). There is now
pressure on social entrepreneurs to scale up, often before they’ve truly proven
their original idea or concept really works; pressure that comes from funders,
prizes and, to an extent, media emphasis. And I’m not just talking about
investment readiness (do the numbers stack up, the cashflow, the working
capital?) but also, more broadly, about organisational readiness (do you have
enough capacity, expertise, the right skill set?) and even what might be termed
‘impact readiness’ (have you proven your model works, will you have most impact
taking this route?). It can also be tough, as Body Shop and others have found,
to scale values and ethical principles. 

---

SSE is not ‘anti-scale’ at all. Of those listed above, Michael Young was our founder; Ann Cotton is an SSE Fellow; John Bird is an expert witness on our programme. And
SSE itself operates under a social franchise, replicating its programme across
the UK and the world (well, Australia for now but more soon, we hope).

It’s our belief that we need both: the big stars and case studies that can capture
imagination and bring attention and investment and recruits to this world; but
also countless smaller stars that help change lives in communities up and down
the country and who, cumulatively, have an enormous role in transforming things
for the better.

Our focus of late at SSE has been pretty relentlessly on our existing and planned activities in the UK; following the government investment in the national network back in February, our Network team have been working hard with our regional partners to get everything in place for the expanded delivery: staff and student recruitment, match funding, agreements with partners, marketing materials, etc etc And the fruits of those labours can be seen in the list of regional schools down the side of the website, which now features Devon, Hampshire and Yorkshire (NB – so new, they don't all have full details up yet!). Hugely exciting and even more so as we recruit students and start the programmes later in the year.

And that UK work and track record over the last decade and more has given us a robust replicable package to work with and created a great deal of interest in the methodology abroad. As regular blog readers will know, our SSE programme in Sydney is our first international pilot, and it has been very rewarding for all over here to see significant time and effort pay off with the first group of Antipodean social entrepreneurs gaining support and development. And to get practically involved: I'm Skype-ing the programme manager over there about an evaluation session tomorrow morning, for example. And we have learned a lot this side in the process, both for our ongoing, current UK work, and for any further international SSEs.

One thing I think is most interesting about our franchise system (I never thought I'd start a sentence with that) is that it is rigorous enough to deliver consistency / quality assurance, but also has enough flexibility to be tailored to different local, regional or national contexts. So what excites us here is learning and adopting new innovations and improvements from our international (and UK) partners, and sharing them back round the franchise. In this way, I hope that, whilst gaining maximum impact from our central expertise and experience, we are not doing so in a neo-colonial type way (UK knows best etc), but in a mutually-beneficial one. Then we can avoid the worst of what Rod Schwartz has been highlighting in his Social Edge debate: Are the only innovations in social entrepreneurship Anglo-Saxon?

And it's exciting to see how social entrepreneurship is spreading into different contexts and more mainstream institutions. Take today's announcement of the British Council planning to boost 10,000 social entrepreneurs worldwide, focusing particularly on East Asia, China and south-east Europe. I'm delighted because we've been working with BC in various guises, including helping on the design of a pilot skills for social entrepreneurs programme in Beijing, and they've now got buy-in centrally to push the work on. Which can only be good news for those of us who think that social entrepreneurship is part of the solution, regardless of your background or which country you're in.