Discussion

Consistent with previous studies (e.g. Bull, 2006; CLES, 2006) the findings reveal a diverse GM social enterprise sector, with organisations coming in various organisational and legal forms and pursuing their social mission in a number of different ways. The findings also provide some, albeit very limited, insight into whether social enterprises might provide ‘good’ work thought to positively impact upon health and wellbeing. Firstly, a relatively high proportion (17%) identify as co-operatives. This is consistent with Mazzei’s (2013) assertion that the GM social enterprise sector is rooted in strong traditions of co-operativism. These organisations, in particular, may involve their staff in decision-making processes (a determinant of ‘good’ work), given the emphasis co-operative organisations place on participatory governance (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016). This is reinforced by the fact that over half of the organisations identified by the mapping study came from the Together Works, SEUK and Buy Social directories, all of which required organisations to have a social ownership structure.

On the other hand, over 50% of the sample identify as either a ‘social enterprise’ or a ‘charity’. It is hard to say whether an organisation identifying only as a ‘social enterprise’ would embrace participatory governance and, in the case of charities, these organisations tend to have hierarchical structures (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016). Also, over half of the sample use a legal form that puts no emphasis on participatory governance: Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) and Community Interest Company (CIC). The low proportion identifying as a social firm (2%), a type of social enterprise that provides supportive work environments that benefit workers, who are often disadvantaged in the labour market (Paluch et al., 2012), suggests that, potentially, these organisations may not provide workers with particularly high levels of support, which is a determinant of ‘good’ work (Marmot et al., 2010).

The relatively high proportion of charities and CLGs is consistent with Bull’s (2006) findings and is, arguably, representative of a particular group of organisations that the social enterprise ‘label’ has been applied to: charities and voluntary organisations embracing a contracting culture and adopting earned income strategies (Chandler, 2008; Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016; Seanor, 2011). Indeed, the CLG form is often adopted by non-profit organisations and is eligible for charitable status (Smith & Teasdale, 2012). That a large proportion of the organisations identified (over 70%) take the legal form of CLG, CIC and Industrial and Provident Society (IPS), suggests that the majority of these organisations are indeed genuine social enterprises. As discussed in the literature review, both the CLG and CIC form effectively put a limit on what can be paid to shareholders (in the former there are no

shareholders) and, in the case of the latter, an asset lock ensures they are set up for community benefit. Although an IPS does not have an asset lock, it does, as stated, require collective decision-making and reinvests surpluses.

The significant proportion of Companies Limited by Shares (16%) also warrants discussion. This is the same percentage of organisations identifying as such in the most recent SEUK survey (Villeneuve-Smith & Temple, 2015). This legal form, although flexible with few inherent characteristics (Smith & Teasdale, 2012), puts no restriction on profit distribution (Godfrey Wilson, 2011). Thus, in theory, 100% of profits could be given to shareholders, which is inconsistent with the ethos of social enterprise and the criteria used by the directories outlined above. Arguably, this could be representative of the ‘encroachment’ of organisations that define themselves as social enterprises for reasons of ‘social desirability’ (Teasdale et al., 2013) seeking to ‘co-opt’ the social enterprise label for private gain (Roy & Hackett, 2016). This is, however, conjecture: just because these organisations are able to distribute profits to all shareholders does not mean they will.

Most organisations seem to be small in size and active in personal service industries. Over 60% employ between one and nine people and the majority provide: ‘training for individuals’, an ‘advice service’ and ‘health’ services. This is consistent with the findings from a recent national social enterprise survey (Villeneuve-Smith & Chung, 2013). These qualities could have positive implications for the quality of work these organisations provide and employees’ health-related outcomes. As discussed in the literature review, employee wellbeing, operationalised as job satisfaction, varies by organisation size and industry. This has been attributed to varying psychosocial working conditions: small organisations and those active in personal service industries tend to give employees more control and flexibility (Eurofound, 2012; Idson, 1990).

In terms of age, the findings suggest that the GM social enterprise sector is relatively young compared to national data for both social enterprise and non-social enterprise SMEs. To the extent that social enterprises ‘fill gaps’ where states and markets have failed37 _(Peattie & Morley, 2008; Sepulveda et al., 2013; Teasdale, 2012a), the relatively young age of the sector could be related to the effects of the recent economic recession and subsequent reductions in government funding for local councils across the UK. Manchester, in particular, between 2010/11 and 2015/16, experienced the eighth largest cut per resident to its spending power out of all councils in England (Manchester City Council, 2015). Indeed, SEUK’s head of policy, Ceri Jones, has suggested that social enterprises can fill the ‘void’ left by statutory cuts (Jones, 2012). Enthusiasm from successive Labour and Conservative governments for

social enterprises delivering public services (Sepulveda, 2014) could also have played a part. Others, such as Teasdale et al. (2013) might suggest it is due to the fact that social awareness of the social enterprise construct has grown to the point where organisations seek to define themselves as such to paint their businesses in a more favourable light. Thus, there are several possible interpretations.

4.4.1. Limitations of the research

There are important limitations to this mapping exercise. In general, social enterprise mapping studies have difficulty, owing to the lack of a consensual definition, in distinguishing social enterprises from other organisations and ensuring the organisations they identify are genuine (Dart et al., 2010). While steps were taken to mitigate these problems, it is impossible to resolve them completely, primarily due to the fact that there is a degree of interpretation on the part of the enterprise as to whether it complies with specified criteria (Buckingham et al., 2010). Data provided by Together Works, SEUK and Buy Social can be considered the most reliable as they did not use ‘arbitrary’ criteria (Dart et al., 2010), insisting on social aims, trading, profit distribution limits and even participatory governance. Unless organisations actively lied, and they might (Teasdale et al., 2013), it is hard to see how they could comply with these criteria and not be genuine social enterprises. Less is known, however, about how the other directories compiled their data, which inevitably casts some doubt on the representativeness of the findings. However, it should be pointed out these sources contributed only 25 organisations not present in the other, more reliable directories.

To compensate for problems associated with social enterprise mapping, the methods were described in clear, detailed, unambiguous terms, in line with Lyon & Sepulveda’s (2009) recommendations. Furthermore, established methods were used following published guidance from the DTI (ECOTEC, 2003). That a large majority of organisations used legal forms commonly associated with social enterprise (CLG, CIC, IPS) suggests one can be reasonably confident that the organisations identified are indeed genuine social enterprises. While the relatively high proportion (16%) of Companies Limited by Shares does raise some questions marks given the lack of restrictions this form places on profit distribution, it should be remembered that the concept of social enterprise does not translate into a single legal form (Doherty et al., 2009; Lyon & Sepulveda, 2009; Price, 2009).

4.5. Concluding comments

These findings provide a small indication that GM social enterprises may, potentially, provide ‘good’ work because a relatively high proportion identify as co-operatives and a large majority are signed up to directories requiring organisations to have participatory governance. It is also possible that they may provide ‘good’ work because the majority of them are small and operate in industries where psychosocial work environments tend to be better. Having said that, over half identify as a ‘charity’ or simply a ‘social enterprise’ and adopt a legal form that puts no emphasis on social ownership. In addition, a significant proportion are Companies Limited by Shares. It hard to say what impact these qualities would have on work quality and, in turn, employees’ health and wellbeing. Any conclusions drawn must be weighed up against the limitations that apply to this research and all social enterprise mapping exercises. Nonetheless, this stage of the research not only serves as a platform to build on in subsequent stages but, by combining data from a range of different sources, also represents the most recent, comprehensive mapping exercise of the GM social enterprise sector to date.