Taking stock

For those of us who worked closely with ambitious start-up social enterprises during the tail end of the first dot.com bubble, the business strategy known as ‘build it and they will come’ is a familiar one. In those days, most thrusting young (or, at least, young at heart) web-based social entrepreneurs had a varation on ‘build it…’ as their elevator pitch. It was a great elevator pitch, you could get it across easily even if you were only going one floor and the pitchee was concentrating on something else for most of the journey.

The least painful stage for ‘build it and they will come’ to fail at is stage 1. While it seems frustrating, those web-based social entrepreneurs who generally lost least money (theirs or other people’s) in the early years of this century were the ones who didn’t actually manage to find the elusive techie who could complete the website to their detailed specifications based on their tiny budget. Slightly more cash was frittered away by those who managed to build something but quickly gave up on the tedious slog of trying to get people to come to it. The real nightmare, though, awaited those who built a website, successfully got some people to turn up and then kept spending for several years at the invisible third stage ‘and then it will be easy to develop some revenue streams.

While ‘build it and they will come’ may be most clearly identifiable in the case of online businesses, it’s clearly not a solely web-based phenomenon.  Online, ‘build it’ is latest incarnation of the eternal problem that a need that exists in the abstract – ‘lots of people like ethical products, wouldn’t it be great to have a portal where people could buy all the ethical products they want to buy in one place’ – doesn’t actually exist in the world of the customer – ‘I want to buy ethical stuff, cheaply and quickly at a supermarket or from a website where I can also buy other things that I want’.

Beyond online services ‘Build it’ is a strategy that’s particularly prevelant in the infrastructure world. Social enterprise certification product, The Social Enterprise Mark, for example, was primarily set-up to tackle the abstract problem that the UK had 64,000 organisations calling themselves social enterprises but no clearly agreed definition of what a social enterprise was. So the ‘build it’ was a definition of social enterprise (controversial or otherwise).

Other difficultes aside, the Mark has faced the challenge that solving the abstract problem it was set up to solve – while arguably useful to society as a whole – has no clear commercial value to anyone. The semi-detached commercial question that Mark answers is ‘does demonstrably conforming to this definition of social enterprise give my organisation sufficient commercial adavantage to justify paying this annual fee?’ is a ‘yes/no’ question that needs either robust evidence and/or a very low fee to provoke a ‘yes’ answer.

As watching Dragons’ Den often show us, solving problems that paying customers don’t want solving for cash is not a problem restricted to social enterprise. Where social enterprise often leads the way is in terms of the disconnect between a genuine abstract need and a commercially viable response. Enter, the Social Stock Exchange.

As a business in itself, the Social Stock Exchange, which has received an £850,000 investment from the Big Society Investment Fund, faces some of the same difficulties as the Social Enterprise Mark, albeit from a slightly different angle. The government clearly believes that the idea has social value in terms of promoting a sustainably business-like vision of social enterprise but, paradoxically, that doesn’t mean there’s a clear business case for the Social Stock Exchange itself.

Lots of leading figures in social enterprise, including Social Enterprise UK Chief Exec. Peter Holbrook, have shown enthusiam for the idea. Talking in May 2011 about the possible launch of the exchange, Holbrook told this blog that:  “I think it’s fundamental in connecting individuals with a true social purpose. I’ve got my pension in an ethical fund which is environmentally light green if it’s green at all – it’s probably turquoise. I would love to be able to say to my pension fund administrator: ‘Actually, I don’t want your turquoise or your light green fund – which just pulls out the very, very worst offending companies: tobacco, arms and similar activities. Actually, I want to invest in companies that are genuinely socially beneficial and therefore I want you to invest my pension in the Social Stock Exchange.’”

If Holbrook is right, that’s a potential solution to half the challenge faced by the Social Stock Exchange – find some people to invest in the stock. More problematic, based on the UK social enterprise as it is now, will be finding some stock for those investors to invest in. Equity investment in social enterprise – as pioneered in the UK by Merism Capital – is something that I’m very enthusiastic about but there aren’t yet very many social enterprises in the position to take equity investment at the level that Merism is offering it, let alone hold an Initial Public Offering (IPO).

According to SEUK’s 2011 State of Social Enterprise Survey, only 12% of current UK social enterprises are companies limited by shares, and therefore able to take equity investment in the event that they want it and investors want to provide it. The Social Stock Exchange is clearly not being launched on the basis of large numbers of current social enterprises seeking to hold IPOs and being prevented from doing so because the infrastructure is not in place. But if the companies selling their stock on the Social Stock Exchange aren’t going to be existing social enterprises in their present form then the obvious question is who are they going to be?

Is the expectation that existing social enterprises will alter their structures (and possibly their whole approach to business) to float on the Social Stock Exchange? Will new social enterprises spring up to fill the gap? Will existing business not currently defining themselves as social enterprises attempt to assume the social mantle? The aim seems to to be to set up the infrastructure and then work with new and existing social enterprises to make use of it. It’s not necessarily a bad idea but, based on the starting point, if it’s successful it’s difficult to predict what that success might look like.



Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Taking stock

  1. In theory, David, I’ll be one of the few able to take advantage of such a stock exchange. I say in theory because we ended up re-forming as a share based company having painted ourselves into a funding corner with a guarantee company.

    There were obstacles to becoming a CIC when it became law, but this wasn’t really where we were aiming. Our business plan set out the case for a network of Bencoms – Community Benefit Societies and this being the model most congruent with our own approach – 100% trading with profit invested in social and community objectives.

    As I recall there was to be a constraint of a minimum turnover of £500,000 to qualify for SSE listing. This was one of several calls for a social stock exchange at the time including one from Muhammad Yunus, a man with a firm stance against only for-profit intermediaries as this and the Social Impact Bond seem to be encouraging.

    What return would be expected from Yunus’ bottom line of “the number of children removed from malnutrition” using Grameen Danone as an example or our own focus on placing children in family homes, as an outcome ‘measured and calibrated in human terms’

    It will therefore do nothing for startup SE, a major focus of our own work over the past 7 year and based on proof of concept work in micro enterprise development overseas though a community bank and peer group lending approach.

    This surely is just another venture capital showcase , seeking kudos by piggybacking the social enterprise movement.

    I’ve shifted the focus of our work into renewable energy which re-invests in other community initiatives. It’s the approach I described to Rob Greenland a while ago when he was asking about revenue sources.


    It will seek investment from the community since these fair weather funders have proven to be a waste of time. This will take the form of the shared asset funding approach I describe or community shares. It really depends on how much support I can muster in establishing a Bencom. To this end I’ve created a Community Benefit Societies group on Linkedin in the hope of arousing interest in general.

    If, as we’ve experienced with the broadband experience, we find ourselves pushed out of the way, you can be assured that I won’t go quietly.


  2. Beanbags admin

    The £500,000 minimum turnover is interesting – I wonder if that’s still what’s proposed. It seems fair enough in terms of an IPO being worthwhile but it certainly restricts the number of social enterprises (as currently understood) that would be able to consider the option.


  3. Pingback: Happy New Year from Campaign4Change | Campaign4Change

  4. Another well considered blog David. However the Permanent Interest Bearing Security (PIBS) could also be traded on a social stock exchange and these handy little bonds can be offered by social enterprises and charities that cannot offer shares due to their organisational structure. Of course the SSE will not provide solutions for all social enterprises looking for investment but no single solution will. Let’s get behind a diverse range of diverse ideas that have good ideas and good talent sitting behind them.


  5. Beanbags admin

    Sounds interesting. Are any charities or social enterprises offering these at the moment?


  6. The cancept of asset based capital partnerships has great potential, in the absence of traditional credit. The CIC based on a guarantee company has a custodian role in this LLP based approach:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s