On your marks…

If I’m ever in need of inspiration when doing lengths at my local pool (and believe me, I am!) then I can take heart from the fact that it’s run by an award winning Social Enterprise.

Greenwich Leisure Ltd (or GLL for short) has actually being going since 1993, and runs 90 leisure centres in London in partnership with local authorities.  And what makes them a “social enterprise”? Well, in their words:

We are a values-based organisation and we recognise our responsibility towards our customers, employees and the environment, within the communities we serve. Any financial surpluses we generate are reinvested to provide long-term benefits for our customers, employees and the communities where we operate.

And also

We aim to encourage community involvement and to promote healthy living. We work to increase levels of physical activity by delivering sport and health programmes that reach all sectors of the community.

For me there’s a double dose of good here, as they are ploughing all profits back into improving their services (including investing in their staff) and they’re also providing affordable and accessible fitness facilities for the community. (I go there largely because you can pay-as-you-go and aren’t hit with the large monthly fees of most other London gyms.)

However, another reason for sharing my (sporadic) fitness regime with you is becauseSocial Enterprise Mark logo GLL have also been awarded a Social Enterprise Mark, which has led me to find out more about the scheme.  My take on this is that it’s aiming to do something along similar lines to the now instantly recognisable Fair Trade Mark. Their hope is that people will start to look for the mark when choosing and using products and services, and they already have a growing list of enterprises who have qualified.  And who does qualify? These are their criteria:

  • Does it have social and/or environmental aims?
  • Does it have its own constitution and governing body?
  • Are at least 50% of company profits spent on socially beneficial purposes?
  • Does it earn at least 50% of its income from trading?
  • Can it demonstrate that social/environmental aims are being achieved?
  • If the company ceased trading would remaining assets be distributed for social/environmental purposes?

I would be surprised if there are many punters out there who would recognise the mark yet, or (to be honest) be particularly motivated by the values it represents (particularly when laid out in these rather dry terms), but that was also true in the early days of Fair Trade, and we now see Fair Trade products on the shelves of every major supermarket.   If consumers have been motivated to buy Fair Trade (for the benefit of producers in the developing world) and organic (for the benefit of the environment and their own health) might they now be motivated to choose providers who are investing something back into the community closer to home?

Only time will tell, but it does feel as if this may be the moment, and this met (yet) be the Mark.

A is for… Accountability

Every Christmas I like to give each member of my family a Good Gift. One of the things which appeals is that I know my money is being used for something very specific. I may not know the name of the villager or village that receives the goat, the beehive or the books, but I am confident that somewhere one of those items has been paid for by me.  I know where my money is going, and I know that the additional handling fee charged by the charity pays for their overheads.

I can’t say the same for the monthly contribution I’ve been making to UNICEF via Payroll Giving. The money has been whisked off into the ether once a month and although they do send a quarterly magazine I’ve no idea which of their many projects I may have supported. I hope it wasn’t all headed notepaper and executive flights.

My point here is not to parade my charitable works, but to pick up on the theme of accountability. It’s something that matters to me when I choose how to give, and to which causes, but it strikes me that there’s less of it about than there could be. It’s also an area where digital technology should be able to have some impact.

My very early thinking on this is that there are probably two main areas where charities and NGOs could (should?) be harnessing the power of the web to achieve and demonstrate greater accountability.

The first is around connecting donors to the causes they are supporting in a much more direct way. Even in fields where contributions can’t be neatly attributed to a goat or a beehive, shouldn’t donors at least know which campaign or project their money is going towards? In addition, wouldn’t it be great to be able to follow the progress of your chosen cause in real time, or receive updates? This is already something that the team at See The Difference are exploring – charities post initial videos explaining the specific project and targets they are raising for, and then post a Job Done video showing the impact of the donations made.  I’m sure there are also individual charities who are doing something similar via their own sites, newsletters or social media updates, but it would be great to see more of it.

I suppose a downside to this model (moving more towards sponsorship than general giving) is that the less fashionable or appealing causes might get left behind.  In a recent Dispatches the WWF came under criticism for only offering “popular” large mammals for adoption – where were the endangered fish and amphibians, many of which are in a worse state than elephants or even the famous panda? Perhaps it’s not as easy to get excited about a cuddly-toy version of a swamp dwelling toad…

And then there’s the issue of all of that headed notepaper, and how that gets paid for, which brings me on to my second point – using the web to publish data about how money is spent. I know charities need to be able to pay their overheads, but personally I’d rather they were more transparent about it. I’d like to know up front “x pence in every pound is spent on running costs” and I’d like to see that number going down over time, or be able to compare between charities.  The Charity Commission does require registered charities to send them annual reports, but doesn’t seem to publish them.  Charities do tend to publish these themselves online, but often as impenetrable PDFs, buried deep in their sites. (In the case of the NSPCC I had to hunt very hard, and found that it’s kept in a separate site altogether!). It strikes me that this is powerful, publicly available, data and more could be done with it.

I think donors in the digital age should hold charities more to account, and that the web could be a powerful tool to enable that.  But there is carrot here as well as stick… being more accountable or transparent could also encourage further giving, along the lines of See The Difference or the mighty Kiva, and should make the whole process more engaging.  And if all of that adds up to more goats and less notepaper, then I for one will be a happy giver.

Picture of a goat