1. York St John University Universities Developing Social Entrepreneurship 1 st – 3 rd September 2015 The FairShares Model: an ethical approach to social enterprise development? Published paper available from: http://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/ekonomski-vjesnik/article/view/3157 http://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/ekonomski-vjesnik/article/view/3157 Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Reader in Co-operative and Social Enterprise Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University Contact: r.ridley-duff@shu.ac.ukr.ridley-duff@shu.ac.uk ReaderDirectorCo-Founder

2. Presentation Overview Starting Point: "What impact do ethical values in the FairShares Model have on social entrepreneurial behaviour?" Literature: articulate a theory of social enterprise based on three modes of trading underpinned by different ethical commitments. –mutual trading (cooperative and mutual enterprises) - CMEs –responsible trading (socially responsible businesses) - SRBs –philanthropic trading (charitable trading activities) - CTAs Case study: examine abstract conceptualisations and practical examples of the FairShares Model. Contribution: a fourth approach based on solidarity between stakeholders? Ridley-Duff, R. (2015) “The FairShares Model: an ethical approach to social enterprise development? Econviews, 28(1).

3. Polanyi’s Three Economic Systems Reciprocity (‘Third System’ rooted in civil society) - Oldest –Production for use (and exchange if surplus to requirements); production for family / community need; some provision for inter-community trading / support; little need for written records of market exchange. Redistribution (‘Second System’ rooted in public policy) –Central taxation / philanthropic giving; spending according to political priorities; local, regional, national and international associations and governments; tax / donor contributions recorded, spending / receipts recorded. Market Exchange (‘First System’ based on markets) - Newest –Production entirely for market exchange/profit; newest approach, previously peripheral, now dominant; all transaction costs and market prices recorded for decision-making and control. Polanyi, K. (2001/1944). The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.

4. Polanyi’s Three Economic Systems Source: Ridley-Duff and Bull (2015), Figure 2.6.

5. 'Socialised Enterprises’ and 'Social Purpose Enterprises’ In research on The Social Enterprise Mark (2012), five social enterprise ‘theories in use’ were evaluated using the concepts of ‘socialisation’ and ‘social purpose’: –Socialised enterprise (pluralist) as a process of developing public/social rights so that primary stakeholders* become owners and controllers of (financial, social and human) capital, and; (socially rational business – relationship quality) –Social purpose enterprise (unitary) as the pursuit of public/community benefit through business activity driven by social goals (economic rationality – task efficiency) Ridley-Duff, R. J. and Southcombe. C. (2012) “The Social Enterprise Mark: a critical review of its conceptual dimensions”, The Social Enterprise Journal, 8(3): 178-200 * Producers, Employees, Consumers and Service Users

6. Mutual Trading in Socialised Enterprises (CMEs) Legal Forms: Cooperatives, Mutuals, Employee-Owned Business, Social / Solidarity Economy Legal Forms Distinguishing Characteristics and Ethical CommitmentsSocialisationSocial Purpose  Is (co-)owned by one or more of its primary stakeholders (workforce, customers and/or service users) 12938  Offers membership to primary stakeholders (workforce, customers, service users) 11743  Ensures that most (or all) of its assets are used for member, community and public benefit 13970  Governed by one or more of its primary stakeholders (workforce, customers, service users) 12156  Continuously encourages cooperative working / networking 11276  Allows members to equitably contribute to, and receive distributions of, capital/surpluses 8253  Provides technical and political education/training to its members (staff, users and elected representatives) 9569 Social enterprise as an ethical commitment to mutual trading Based on 136 responses from social enterprise lecturers, researchers and post-graduate students for Ridley-Duff and Bull (2015), Table 2.2

7. Responsible Trading in Socially Responsible Businesses (SRBs) Legal Forms: Social Welfare Corp (Asia), Social / Community Enterprises (EU), B-Corps, Low-Profit Corps (US) Distinguishing Characteristics and Ethical CommitmentsSocialisationSocial Purpose  Is not owned or controlled by a private company or public authority 8778  States (and reviews) its ethical values and principles 7670  Provides at least some paid employment 6067  Provides evidence that it makes a positive social impact and/or runs for community benefit 6983  Educates the public about the benefits of its business model 83106  Receives most of its income from trading activities, not grants or donations 7195 Social enterprise as an ethical commitment to responsible trading Based on 136 responses from social enterprise lecturers, researchers and post-graduate students for Ridley-Duff and Bull (2015), Table 2.2

8. Social enterprise as an ethical commitment to charitable trading Based on 136 responses from social enterprise lecturers, researchers and post-graduate students for Ridley-Duff and Bull (2015), Table 2.2

9. Social Enterprise – Theory Summary Cooperative and Mutual Enterprises (CMEs) that are defined by ethical commitments to (and innovative systems for advancing) trade through democratic / inclusive enterprises. Socially Responsible Businesses (SRBs) that are defined by ethical commitments to (and technologies for) sustainable development and the creation of ‘shared value’ in markets. Charitable Trading Activities (CTAs) that are defined by ethical commitments to produce only public benefits and the delivery of public / community services.

10. Using this theory to examine The FairShares Model Goal: see if ‘espoused theories’ (abstract conceptualisations) are influencing ‘theories in use’ (practice) (Argyris et al., 1985; Smith, 2001) Approach: naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) Sensemaking: through engagement in reflexive analysis of research impacts on the inter-subjective construction of social enterprise practices (Van Maanen, 2011) Writing up: present as a realist ethnography to ‘objectify self’ and see impact more clearly? (Van Maanen, 1998) Key Test: If ‘espoused theories’ have catalytic validity they will have influence ‘theories in use’ (Kinchloe & McClaren, 1988; Johnson et al., 2006).

11. The FairShares Model (interview evidence of antecedent models) Practitioner influences citedTheoretical influences cited Stakeholder Model Ltd  Kermase Food Co-operative  Fair Trade Movement  Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd  Lippy People (Media/Arts)  North East Music Co-operative Ltd  Political debates (‘Clause 4’ and common ownership). Co-operative journals / readings Paul Golan and Anthony Jensen’s writings on industrial relations (opposition to) Charlie Cattell’s single stakeholder / common ownership model Co-operative CIC  Co-operative Legal Services  Co-operative movement members  UK Labour Government (1997 – 2003)  Industrial and Provident Society Law Rochdale Principles ICA Co-operative Values and Principles Social Justice principles of New Labour (N.B. no single author cited) NewCo Model  Sheffield Community Economic Development Unit  ESP Projects Ltd Readings on ‘political economy’ Karl Polanyi (“Great Transformation”) "Third Way" Debates Surplus Sharing Social Enterprise Model  Democratic Business Ltd (Gavin Boby)  Sheffield Co-op Development Group (Alan Dootson)  School Trends Ltd (Peter Beeby and Rick Norris)  Employee Ownership Association (under David Erdal)  Mondragon Corporation (Mikel Lezamiz)  Dr Poonam Thapa (Nepalese Social Entrepreneur) Co-operative and Social Enterprise Journals Guy Major and Gavin Boby’s writings on ‘equity devaluation’ and ‘value added sharing’ Community Company Model (Coad and Cullen, 2001) N.B. Major and Boby presented findings in a conference on Vanek’s work. They make specific mention of The Democratic Firm by David Ellerman as a key source.

12. Founder Shares Espoused Theory (Impact of antecedents on design principles) Social EntrepreneurshipWorker Co-operationConsumer Co-operation Case 7.2 - Co-operative CIC Case 7.4 - Surplus Sharing Social Enterprise Case 7.1 - Stakeholder Model Ltd Labour SharesUser Shares Investor Shares Supporting Institutions FairShares Model Case 7.3 - NewCo

13. Espoused Theory (Values and Principles)  wealth and power sharing with primary stakeholders;  ethical review of the choice of goods/services offered;  ethical review of production and retailing processes;  specification of social purpose(s) and auditing of social impact(s);  a social democratic model for the ownership, governance and management of capital

14. Theory in Use: Impact on FairShares Association (FA) Governance Taking a closer look: https://www.loomio.org – three stakeholder structure with evidence of voting extended to non-members for some decisions.https://www.loomio.org

15. Theory in Use: Impact on FairShares Model Education (FME) Taking a closer look: https://www.loomio.org – evidence of students deliberating in four stakeholder groups.https://www.loomio.org

16. Theory in Use: FairShares Model adoption by Massmosaic (new)

17. Evidence of commitment to CME characteristics Abstract Models Practice Examples Mutual Trading (CMEs)Co-opCompany AssociationFAFME  Co-owned by one or more of its primary stakeholders Yes No Yes  Offers membership to primary stakeholders Yes  Ensures that most (or all) of its assets are used for member, community and public benefit All three Community and Public All three  Governed by one or more of its primary stakeholders Yes  Continuously encourages cooperative working / networking Yes  Allows members to equitably contribute to, and receive distributions of, capital/surpluses Yes Contribute only Contribute only Yes  Provides technical and political education/training to its members Yes Socialised Enterprise

18. Discussion Very early days, but there is evidence that ‘espoused theories’ are influencing ‘theories in use’. Three / four stakeholder model activity (Founders, Labour, Users) found at the FairShares Association (+community forum), and four stakeholder model (Founders, Labour, Users and Investor) carried into educational activities at two universities. Four stakeholder model (Founders, Employees, Customers, Investors) adopted by Massmosaic. One-person, one-vote occurring, and multi-stakeholder co- operation occurring. Research findings suggest practices can go beyond the abstract model (e.g. voting for non-members in FA example). ‘Catalytic validity’ of the FairShares Model established.

19. Key Finding / Contribution The FairShares Model varies to fit the regulatory requirements of CMEs, SRBs and CTAs. However, perhaps just as significant is the application of social solidarity amongst multiple stakeholders across all legal forms.

20. References See published paper at: http://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/ekonomski- vjesnik/article/view/3157 Contact: r.ridley-duff@shu.ac.ukr.ridley-duff@shu.ac.uk For more on FairShares: www.fairshares.coop