English – Page 53 – Canadian CED Network

A new study shows that Ontario’s co-operative sector contributes $5.97 billion yearly to the province’s GDP. The research, released by CCEDNet member the Ontario Co-operative Association (On Co-op), the capacity-building organization and trade association for the province’s 1,300 co-operative business enterprises, found that the highest number of co-operatives are in housing and child care services — and that insurance, finance, agriculture and whole sale industries are the economic drivers for the co-operative sector in Ontario.

Mark Ventry, On Co-op’s Executive Director says, “Co-operatives are increasingly recognized for their contributions to the community and now we can demonstrate their contributions to the economic wealth of the Province.” He adds, “The Ontario co-operative sector injects $3.3 billion into household income and is responsible for providing more than 57,000 jobs (full-time equivalents).” Ventry says that Ontario co-ops pay more than $1.3 billion in taxes annually.

Fiona Duguid, president of the Canadian Association for the Studies in Co-operation and a researcher in the study, analyzed data from the 2010 annual co-operative survey conducted by Industry Canada. “The province of Ontario counts for nearly 40% of both population and GDP of Canada, yet its co-operative sector accounted for only 10% of the national co-op activity,” she says. “If Ontario’s co-operative sector had grown at the national average, the sector would have been four times as large as it was in 2010.”

Ontario’s co-operative sector is a combination of financial co-ops such as credit unions, caisse populaires and insurance companies, and non-financial co-operatives which operate in about 20 key sectors of the Ontario economy including telecommunications, housing, agriculture, arts and culture, social services, child care, retail sales and transportation.

Duguid notes that her research team has examined the size and economic impact of co-operatives nationally, in Manitoba and in other provinces using the same methodology. Additionally, On Co-op conducted a socio-economic impact study of the 59 co-ops and sector-affiliated organizations in Guelph earlier this year, and plans to work with partners in other areas to replicate its study in other regions across the province.

The Ontario co-operative research study was funded in part by the Government of Ontario in collaboration with the Canadian CED Network. Copies of the study and a series of infographics are available from the On Co-op website

Read more about the Ontario Co-op Economic Impact Research

ABOUT THE ONTARIO CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

The Ontario Co-operative Association believes that co-operatives build a better world. We are the trade association and capacity-building organization that develops, engages, educates and advocates for Ontario’s 1,300 co-operative business enterprises. On Co-op is an information and resources network with a mission to lead, cultivate and connect co-operatives.
Visit www.ontario.coop, facebook.com/oncoop, twitter.com/ontariocoops.

ABOUT THE CO-OPERATIVE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE MODEL

Co-operatives are community-focused business enterprises that balance people, planet and profit. Co-ops are democratic and value-based, formed to seize local opportunities and meet the needs of their member-owners. As a trusted place to do business, co-operatives are chosen by more than 1 in 7 people worldwide. Twice as many co-ops remain in operation after ten years as other types of business enterprise. Ontario is home to 1,300 co-operatives and credit unions, which operate 1,900 branches in 400 communities.

In its recent budget, the Province of Alberta announced a new initiative to partner with economic development agencies, business improvement zones, revitalization districts and local associations to enhance opportunities for businesses throughout Alberta.

In his speech, Finance Minister Joe Ceci committed the province to investing “$10 million in community economic development initiatives to support local economic development associations and help them make their full contribution to job creation and economic renewal in Alberta.”

Alberta’s announcement contributes to a growing trend of governments recognizing the vital contribution CED can make to the economy and the advantages of pursuing economic opportunities that create social and environmental benefits. Just in the past year, the UK has launched a new CED program, New Brunswick instituted new measures supporting CED investment funds, Ontario passed community benefit legislation, British Columbia created social impact purchasing policy guidelines and Québec tabled its social economy action plan, to name a few.

CCEDNet applauds Alberta’s announcement and looks forward to working with our members and partners there to ensure the success of this valuable investment.

Read the Alberta Budget Speech.
See CCEDNet’s policy priorities.

This blog was originally published on KPN Blog site, “David LePage puts his cards on the table about the definition of social enterprise, why it’s a verb and not a noun, and how it’s marketplace value.”

The definition of social enterprise continues on as a fascinating issue. In fact it seems like the definition quandary just continues to go in every direction possible, and in the last couple weeks it may have gone to completely unsurpassed extremes. Some groups seem to be recognizing any manner of company or entrepreneur that just happens to “do good” through some of its products or social responsibility activities as a social enterprise, even if their profits are the key objective and purely for the shareholders. On the other side, in a recent blog it was stated, “A social enterprise is any entity that exists with the sole purpose of benefiting humanity.” The author argues that doing business is not a requirement of social enterprise, just being a non-profit organization makes an entity a social enterprise. (Indianewengland.com, August 15, 2015)

Will we ever get past the debate of social enterprise definition? Personally I sure hope so, but I don’t think quite yet for two reasons.

One: because the more the sector grows in size and influence and impact the more we need to capture social enterprise as the valuable tool for social impact it can be, before the term becomes a diluted form of social washing or disregards the social and economic change we really wish to create.

Two: because we have to understand social enterprise is a verb, not a noun. I use the term ‘tool’ above, because social enterprise is not the “entity” it is the manner in which we do business. Social enterprise is about the social and economic value we create through marketplace activity.

Does this mean other businesses don’t achieve social value? Not at all, lots of businesses do good and contribute to the community, through products, customer targets, social giving, profit sharing, co-operative structure, and more, but that doesn’t make them a social enterprise – many of us call those them ‘social purpose businesses’. They do lots of good but ultimately operate and evaluate success in the traditional shareholder, revenue driven economy.

Yes, there is a growing new energy emerging in the business world, such as B Corp Certification and the Harvard-based Shared Values movement. Social enterprise includes these values, but also includes another goal that goes beyond just doing and being good citizens, or adding a social value to your products, or being really green – social enterprises want to change the marketplace value system.

For me the best way to understand social enterprise is as a verb. Social enterprise is a way to do business, rather than merely a noun, or a thing. It is not the entity; it is the values it brings to the exchange of goods and services.

So social enterprise isn’t a single model or simple definition, it is the business activity that integrates and prioritizes social impact over private values. Social enterprise is ultimately about shifting the very tenets of the capitalist based economy. We need a social enterprise marketplace, where we trade goods and services, based on social and community values that drive the economy.

I think we can best define social enterprise by understanding the values that social enterprise operates within, and how it operates, rather than the thing that it is. For me social enterprise operates with a set of values:

Why it does business – primarily it has a social, environmental or cultural purpose
Who it benefits in the market– its products and services contribute to building a healthy and inclusive community economy
How the profits are distributed – primarily to further its social purpose

Social enterprises’ primary purpose, their mission, is to create a social, cultural or environmental impact; they are a business, selling goods and services generates the majority of their income; and they reinvest all or the majority of their profits into the social mission.

Yes, they use a business model. Social enterprise definitely trades in the market place. It sells something; it is a supplier of goods or services to a buyer. And income is primarily derived from sales.

But, the Social enterprise prioritizes the social over the financial return on investment. It operates a financially sound business, however the social impact dominates or displaces personal or shareholder profits.

And it is incorporated in a way to insure this profit distribution happens in perpetuity. The value created is not just a charitable set-aside, temporary sales or marketing plan, a promotional gimmick or a share valuation scheme.

But ultimately, whether we argue the definition, and where we land in 5-10 years is not the real discussion. The real discussion is about the social value we create through the market place activities. We are building a long-term change in how the economy serves a community; so in the interim, the social enterprise story of its impact becomes tantamount to describe itself.

The Social enterprise quandary is not the definition of what it is, it is understanding social enterprise as part of the process of changing from a short term, shareholder, financial value driven market place, to the trading of goods and services as a means to create social value and a community economy.

While we are in this process of transition, the stories we share about our progress are critical to the defining social enterprise. We have to describe how social enterprise is impacting peoples’ lives and creating new opportunities. We have to continue to find the channels to share stories, to build the evidence, to encourage others.

Kibble’s Podcast Network, KPN, is definitely a part of that journey.

In August of 2000, there was not yet a plan for Neighbourhoods Alive! (NA!) to partner with Neighbourhood Renewal Corporations (NRC). It had been determined that NA! would employ a Community Led Development (CLD) model. Although the CLD model was central to the NA! approach, it had not been well-defined or determined as to how it would be applied.

The initial thought was to consider identifying “umbrella organizations” in each NA! community to assist with local renewal efforts in a volunteer advisory capacity. There had been approaches to some local organizations such as community centres, but most of these organizations had their hands full with their own specific mandates and were reluctant to get involved in a broader voluntary role.

At that time, there were two pre-existing NRCs: West Broadway Development Corporation (WBDC) and the North End Community Renewal Corporation (NECRC), as well as two emerging NRCs: Brandon Neighbourhood Renewal Corporation (BNRC) and Spence Neighbourhood Association (SNA). These organizations were willing to play a role in partnering with NA!, but not without some agreement that included compensation for services. There was initially some reluctance to have the limited NA! resources spent on what could be considered an additional administrative role, but the NRCs were able to effectively lobby and there was support within government.

Neighbourhood Development Assistance

By December of 2000, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs (the lead department for NA!) was instructed to develop a program to contract with NRCs and possibly other organizations in each NA! community. The Neighbourhood Development Organizations (NDO) program with the Province of Saskatchewan was identified as an existing model. At that time, there were four NDOs, including the Quint Development Corporation (serving five neighbourhoods) in Saskatoon, each receiving annual funding of $150,000. The NDO program promoted community economic development in NDO communities.

In early 2001, the Neighbourhood Development Assistance (NDA) program was developed, based on the Saskatchewan NDO program. As opposed to the NDO program, however, NDA included some provision for differing funding levels based on $75,000 per year for single community/ neighbourhood NRCs such as BNRC and SNA, and $200,000 for the multi-neighbourhood NECRC (serving three NA! neighbourhoods in 2001). In April 2001, the first five-year NDA agreements were signed with the original four NRCs. Initially, there was a volunteer-based committee in Thompson, the Thompson NRC was established and added to the NDA agreements in September 2001.

In exchange for the five-year NDA agreements, NRCs were asked to develop five-year Neighbourhood Renewal Plans (NRP). While Intergovernmental Affairs employed professional City Planners, the NRCs did not. A City Planning student, employed with NA!, helped develop the first guidelines for NRPs. While there was initially some reluctance on the part of NRCs, the first rudimentary NRPs were developed to help guide local renewal efforts. In the process of developing the first plans, NRCs consulted their respective communities.

NDA was initially simply meant to cover basic NRC core operating costs. In 2001, it was felt that $75,000 per year would be sufficient to cover the NRC manager’s salary and office space. NECRC could consider employing other staff members, in addition to a manager. NRCs were encouraged to explore other funding opportunities including applying to Revenue Canada to become registered charities. NECRC, WBDC, and SNA did eventually become registered charities. Brandon NRC was able to negotiate an agreement with the City of Brandon that included rent-free office space and assistance with administrative costs.

NRCs were growing both in terms of their role in their respective communities and resources needed to be effective in that role. All of the NRCs identified housing renewal as critical to their role, including some employing Housing Coordinators. Where there might be a cost-sharing arrangement with local municipalities or other funders the NA! Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) was also used to facilitate agreements to fund these projects on a time-limited basis.

Organizational Sustainability Planning

In 2003, NA! contracted Tamarack to facilitate a workshop on Organizational Sustainability Planning. It assisted both NA! and the NRCs to get a better sense of how community development corporations (CDC) across Canada have managed to sustain themselves. In many cases, CDCs receive part of their funding from one or more levels of government. Other sources of income include charitable foundation grants, donations including in-kind, and own source revenue including service fees.

Currently, three Winnipeg NRCs are registered charities and receive part of their funding from charitable foundations and/or through donations. Other NRCs are also in the process of applying to Revenue Canada to become a registered charity, but the process appears to have become more difficult. Brandon NRC, not a registered charity, has managed to become sustainable with funding and other support from all three levels of government.

Several NRCs own property that may be leased to other community-based organizations and/ or public agencies. Some NRCs have launched social enterprises that generate revenue, although not always covering actual costs. In some cases, NDA is now a minority of NRC revenue. The NRCs that have been in existence for the past 15 years tend to have a more diversified revenue base, while NRCs that have more recently been established continue to seek greater sustainability.

NA! Small Grants Fund

In 2003, SNA proposed its Building with Blocks project to be funded under NRF. It proposed establishing a local fund administered by SNA to fund smaller projects with local school parent councils and other groups that would have difficulty applying to NA! or other funders. There was concern within NA! that this project delegated some funding authority directly to a NRC. It was a popular concept with other NRCs and the NA! Small Grant Fund (SGF) was eventually established with all NRCs.

One unforeseen difficultly with SGF was that Revenue Canada had a concern about NRCs that were registered charities taking on what it viewed as a non-charitable role. A solution for NECRC was to establish a separate organization, North End Revitalization Inc., to administer SGF and other non-charitable roles. SGF has allowed for more local decision-making on NA! funding, but perhaps placed NRCs in the position of being viewed as agents of government.

In addition to SGF, the previous Department of Family Services and Housing also established a small grant program for exterior renovations to eligible homeowners and landlords through its Neighbourhood Housing Assistance program. Homeowners and landlords can apply for $1,000 – $2,000 grants and must at least match that contribution. The City of Winnipeg also has a similar fund through its Housing Improvement Zones program.

NA! Expansions and NRCs

In 2005, NA! expanded to serve seven additional Major Improvement Areas (MIA). neighbourhoods in Winnipeg (twelve MIA neighbourhoods in total). In the case of NECRC, already serving two of these expansion neighbourhoods, NDA funding was simply increased proportionately to NECRC. In the case of the other five expansion neighbourhoods, the NDA program allowed for the expansion of existing NRCs to serve these neighbourhoods or the establishment of new multi-neighbourhood NRCs. NRF funding was also increased somewhat.

By 2006, NDA funding levels had also been increased to recognize the growing role of NRCs. The 2005 Neighbourhoods Alive! Community Outcomes Evaluation had identified that, while the role of the NRCs had evolved, NDA funding was no longer sufficient. For the single community/ Neighbourhood NRCs such as BNRC and WBDC, NDA funding increased from $75,000 to $150,000 per year, although NRCs would no longer be able to apply to NRF for funding for roles such as Housing Coordination.

At that time, neither WBDC nor SNA expressed interest in expanding to serve the new NA! neighbourhoods. NDA allowed for expansion neighbourhoods to receive up to $75,000 per neighbourhood per year, considering that multi-neighbourhood NRCs would have some economy of scale. The Central Neighbourhoods Development Corporation (CNDC), serving three NA! neighbourhoods, and the Daniel McIntyre/St. Matthews Community Association (DMSMCA) were eventually established. NECRC would receive $350,000, CNDC – $225,000, and DMSMCA – $150,000 per year in NDA funding.

The differing funding levels would be a source of contention for some of the multi-neighbourhood NRCs such as CNDC. In the North End of Winnipeg, NA! has also allowed for NRF funding for coordination of resident associations in those neighbourhoods. While CNDC and DMSMCA have also benefitted from some ongoing NRF funding for some of their projects, other NERCs have also continued to make demands on NRF funding for their projects.

In 2008, NA! again expanded to serve five new communities outside of Winnipeg. As these communities were generally smaller in population or considered to have lower needs than Brandon and Thompson, NDA funding for these communities was set at $75,000 per year. As these communities were situated many kilometers apart, multi-community NRCs were not viewed as an option in those communities. Eventually, NRCs were established in all five of these NA! expansion communities. NRF was also again increased somewhat to accommodate this expansion.

In 2011, NA! expanded to serve the Winnipeg neighbourhood of Chalmers. While not a MAI neighbourhood, it was considered to have comparable needs and a larger population than most NA! neighbourhoods. Again, there was not interest in expanding existing NRCs to serve this neighbourhood. The Chalmers Neighbourhood Renewal Corporation (CNRC) was established with NDA funding of $150,000 per year, although with less NRF funding available to that neighbourhood than for other neighbourhoods. The decision to provide NDA funding at this level to CNRC, despite lesser access to NRF funding, would be a source of contention for NRCs such as CNDC.

NDA currently funds 13 NRCs at an annual cost of about $1.8 Million. NRF has also increased from the original $2 Million to almost $3 Million per year. NHA has remained at approximately $1 Million, but now serving more communities. At this point in time, NA! has not identified any further expansion plans. After 15 years in operation, some of the challenges for both NA! and the NRCs will be assessing the impact, determining levels of community capacity, and sustaining ongoing revitalization efforts.

For more information on NA!, check out the resources below:

Neighbourhoods Alive! Blog Post Part 1
Neighbourhoods Alive! Blog Post Part 3
Government of Manitoba Neighbourhoods Alive! program
A Guide for Developing Neighbourhood Plans (Neighbourhoods Alive!)
A Guide to Community Development

Richard Dilay is currently a self-employed Organizational Consultant. For 11.5 years, between 2000 and 2014, he was the Manager of Neighbourhoods Alive! (on secondment to the department of Family Services between 2010 and 2012). Previously, he worked as a Community Organizer, Child Welfare Worker, and Immigrant Counsellor in Winnipeg. He has a Master of Social Work degree from the University of Manitoba.

The Pioneers

As the 28 weavers and other skilled workers of a small English town set their minds to creating a new business model back in 1844, I wonder if they had any vision for what their innovation would become. Their profound legacy is a global movement with incredible economic and community impact that we celebrate this week. You may be surprised to hear what has become of the groundbreaking work of this small group of local leaders!

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. —Margaret Mead

What the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers understood was that, even as fully employed skilled workers, they were struggling in poverty and unable to access many very basic needs. They knew that they did not control the market, and that the primary focus of the market was not about ensuring their well-being.

Their innovation was transformative—it put the power in their hands through a democratic, collectively owned enterprise entirely focused on their well-being. It was a union of people rather than a union of money; the focus was serving people rather than serving money—although sound and sustainable business practices were essential to ensuring that the members’ needs were met for the long-term.

The principles of co-operation that these early pioneers established to guide their business model have stood the test of time and continue to guide co-operative business practices around the world to this very day.

The Co-operative Advantage

A co-op is an organization owned by the members who use its services (consumer co-op, including credit union), work there (worker co-op), live there (housing co-op), or by a combination of stakeholders (multi-stakeholder co-op). While some are non-profits, most are for-profit businesses. They are governed by members who are elected by the membership.

Co-ops can provide any product or service, and exist in every sector of the economy. The difference is that they are democratic, collectively owned and controlled by users of the organization, and focused on member and community well-being. Research in several Canadian provinces also reveals that a co-operative business is twice as likely to succeed over time as compared to a traditional business model.

If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to far, go together.

The Co-operative Movement

The waves of co-operation spread from Rochdale, and within 10 years there were over 1,000 co-ops in England. The concept captured the imagination of communities throughout Europe, and soon expanded across the Atlantic. Late in the 19th Century, the co-op movement spread into eastern Canada, reaching western Canada around the turn of the century—both primarily focused on serving the agricultural and financing needs of farmers.

Today, co-ops employ over 250 million people around the world. In Canada there are 18 million members of 9,000 co-ops, who contribute over $50 billion to the Canadian economy and support over 600,000 jobs. More than 100,000 members are involved in governing their co-operative. Manitoba is home to over 350 co-ops. In 2010, Manitoba co-ops created over $1.7 billion in economic value to the Manitoba economy.

share-your-cooperative-advantage_623px.png

Celebrate Co-op Week With Us!

Assiniboine Credit Union, as a values-based financial co-operative, is grateful for the determination, inspiration, values, and vision of those early pioneers in Rochdale and we celebrate with pride the global co-operative economy that continues to create incredible social and economic impact around the world today for so many people and communities.

International Co-op Week:
Celebrating Our Co-operative Advantage
October 11-18, 2015.

4 Ways You Can Participate:

Join a co-op; shop co-op: Every time you spend money you’re casting a vote for the kind of world you want.
Listen to BOLD Radio
Use Your Voice: Use social media to celebrate #coops2015 and @MyAssiniboine!
Follow Assiniboine Credit Union: on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn

Originally published on Assiniboine Credit Union’s Community Hub, Asterisk

Brendan Reimer is Assiniboine Credit Union’s Strategic Partner of Values-Based Banking. As the former Manitoba Regional Director at the Canadian CED Network, member of the Social Enterprise Council of Canada, former board member at LITE and former member of ACU’s Board of Directors, Brendan is a passionate educator and organizer dedicated to creating inclusive, fairer, and more sustainable economies and communities.

Elections are natural times to think about the future. What kind of Canada do we want? What issues are most important? What kind of change is possible?

Hand putting a ballot in an Elections Canada ballot box

But what if the deluge of issues was actually a symptom of some more profound systemic problems? What if dealing with them in isolation won’t change the dynamics that created them in the first place?

Don’t get me wrong — treating symptoms is essential. But if we don’t also address causes, we may never get off our hamster wheel.

Many of the frustrations with government responses to these issues are rooted in the siloed structures and jurisdictional walls that were created long ago. They are the legacy of a way of thinking about the world that focuses more on differences and separateness than connections.

Today, it’s obvious that the economy is connected to the environment. Public health specialists and epidemiologists know that your health is affected by your income. And businesses are essential to building communities.

For most of us, all of these issues come together where we live, and the economy affects almost every sphere. Taking action to shift the economy on a community level, as part of a move to re-embed our values in the economy is a growing trend. We see it in consumer choices for healthy, local food, the creation of new co-ops and social enterprises, and the move towards community investment and social purchasing opportunities, to name a few.

Thousands of Canadians are building community economies that are more democratic and contribute to positive local economic, social and environmental impacts.

To some, talking about community economies may seem like parochial nostalgia for bygone days. In contrast, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis predict that shifting control to communities is likely to grow in the future. The reason is that the types of problems communities can solve – those which also tend to resist governmental or market solutions – arise when interactions cannot be regulated by contracts or external decisions due to the complexity of the interactions or the private nature of the information involved. As information-intensive team production replaces assembly lines, and the economy shifts from an emphasis on quantities to qualities, the superior governance capabilities of communities are what will facilitate the qualitative interactions underpinning the 21st century economy.

The shift to a community focus is not just practical, it’s also simply a better, fuller way of living. Charles Leadbetter argues that the time has come for a co-operative correction, to shift our cultural centre of gravity. After having become too dependent on explicit rules, formal systems and material incentives, which stifle co-operation, we can now focus on forms of community governance based on relationships and trust, rather than systems and rules, and approaches to public policy which open up opportunities for co-operation rather than closing them down from the outset.

Co-operation and communities – far from seeming quaint and anachronistic – could come to define the spirit of the times, successful and modern, aspirational and dynamic. Backed by many converging sciences, we now understand more about how to sustain co-operation through fairness, communication, norms and reputation-building. Internet and social media are working in favour of co-operation, amplifying and reinforcing relationships.

For my money, the most fitting label for our current predicament was suggested by evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson in a conversation I had with him earlier this year. After working with Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom for many years to generalize the design principles of co-operation in successful groups, he described the opportunity before us as ‘cultural evolution’. It’s a chance to change some old practices that may have worked for a time, but are now outdated.

By strengthening communities and shifting our economies to increase local control, we create opportunities to make a difference across a wide range of issues. These steps to reinvigorating neighbourhood economies can lead the way to a new era of abundance, resilience, and health.

So as you cast your vote in the federal election, consider action for community economies in your choice, as well as in your everyday choices afterwards.

It’s democracy in action.

Michael Toye is the Executive Director of the Canadian CED Network. He has also taught courses on CED and social enterprise at Concordia University and has written a number of articles and other publications on CED and the social economy, including co-editing the book, Community Economic Development: Building for Social Change.

Read Michael’s blogs

Follow Michael on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Co-op Week 2015, taking place from October 11-17, is an opportunity for co-ops and credit union members across Canada to celebrate that they have collectively helped to build this country – and to recognize their continuing contributions both at home and abroad.

Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada (CMC) has chosen this year’s theme to be “Our Co-op Advantage,” and are asking people to share their views on the benefits of being a co-op with others across the country.

Earlier this year, CMC launched an online store in collaboration with the Flagshop to celebrate our co-op identity and Co-op Week. Co-op branded products such as flags, pins, decals and more are available to order. They have also established a group discount program to help make participation as affordable as possible. You can also download logos and posters for free!

The Saskatchewan Co-operative Association has created the Co-op Week Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Planning Your Co-op Week Celebrations. This comprehensive toolkit is a co-op’s guide to creating a memorable and successful celebration and includes information on what Co-op Week is, why it is celebrated, great ideas for community involvement, building membership, educating youth, advertising your event, having a civic proclamation and much more.

Co-op Week appears to be a uniquely Canadian phenomenon. In the US, October is Co-op Month, and the International Co-operative Alliance and United Nations have an International Day of Co-operatives on the first Saturday in July. Co-op Week is always celebrated during the same week as International Credit Union Day, which is the third Thursday in October of each year.

SOURCE: The Ontario Co-operative Assocation

Over the last year leading up to the federal election, CCEDNet’s Policy Council, Board, the People-Centred Economy group, members and staff have been hard at work to prepare election resources, raise awareness of our policy recommendations and advance our priorities with all political parties.

The first step began more than a year ago with an update of our policy priorities. The new document makes the case for community economic development and identifies seven recommendations to support finance and investment, community enterprise and local opportunities.

The People-Centred Economy group, a coalition of leading members and partners originally formed to organize the National Summit on a People-Centred Economy, was also involved in creating a specific set of policy proposals for Canada’s social economy. These eight proposals focus on four areas: growing social economy businesses; stimulating investment; leveraging procurement; and modernizing legislation and regulations.

Over the last nine months especially, we have been reaching out to all parties and meeting with key MPs and officials to discuss our recommendations. Our meetings in Ottawa emphasized the importance of clear and simple messages, which is why we developed a short 2-page call to action for changes spending and investment to support community economies.

We also took the opportunity to update our popular Art of Advocacy booklet with help from charities lawyer Richard Bridge. The new version clearly outlines the rules about political activities by charities and provides handy tips on a range of different advocacy tactics.

Finally, we have collected all of these resources as well as links to election materials from many of our members and partners on our Action for Community Economies page for easy access.

Now it’s Your Turn

Candidates and Canadians need to hear about how community economies are making a difference all across the country. Take action now and show your support:

share the community economies election materials on social media and in your networks
send a letter to the candidates in your riding with questions on how they will support community economies
Vote!

We can vote to support federal policy changes together. Let’s put action for community economies on the agenda of all election candidates this fall.

Read Michael’s blogs

Follow Michael on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Join us for virtual regional member meetups! This is an opportunity to connect with other CCEDNet members, Board members and staff in your region, discuss opportunities and challenges, and ask quetions. New members are particularly welcome.

Atlantic Member Meetup | October 7th at 11am Atlantic Time
Please join by computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/338118397
You can also dial in using your phone: (647) 497-9353
Access Code: 338-118-397

Northern Member Meetup | October 7th at 12pm Eastern Time
Please join by computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/989973045
You can also dial in using your phone: (647) 497-9371
Access Code: 989-973-045

Ontario & Québec Member Meetup | October 7th at 2pm Eastern Time
Please join by computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/330517901
You can also dial in using your phone: (647) 497-9379
Access Code: 330-517-901

Francophone Member Meetup | October 8th at 2pm Eastern Time
Please join by computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/547726741
You can also dial in using your phone: (647) 497-9372
Access Code: 547-726-741

British Columbia Member Meetup | October 8th at 12:30pm Pacific Time
Please join by computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/425582277
You can also dial in using your phone: (647) 497-9351
Access Code: 425-582-277

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Member Meetup | October 13th at 12pm Central Time/11am Mountain Time
Please join by computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/125511461
You can also dial in using your phone: (647) 497-9380
Access Code: 125-511-461

If you’d like to attend but can’t make the meeting for your region, or if you have any questions, please contact Matthew Thompson at mthompson at ccednet-rcdec.ca

village of cumberland On September 23rd, Cumberland, B.C. was recognized for its innovative leadership as this small B.C. municipality was officially certified as Canada’s first BUY SOCIAL municipality.

“My congratulations to Cumberland on becoming the first municipality in B.C. to adopt Social Purchasing. Earlier this year, the Ministry adopted social impact purchasing guidelines to ensure that staff consider social value, in addition to financial value, when they buy goods and services. Governments invest in social programs that improve life in our communities. Our purchasing dollars can also make a difference and it’s wonderful to see Cumberland take this step.” said Minister Stilwell, B.C. Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation. Minister Stilwell also thanked Comox Valley MLA Don McRae, for leading the initial development of the Provincial Social Impact Purchasing Guidelines, during his time as Minister.

Buy Social Canada is an internationally recognized third-party program that certifies organizations and municipal partners who have demonstrated a commitment to the Buy Social principles and are proactively working to ensure that procurement works to add, rather than diminish, social value in society.

Cumberland Mayor Leslie Baird that the social procurement framework received unanimous support from all members of Council. “The Social Procurement Framework ensures that we still access goods and services through a competitive and transparent bidding process, but we are now being a lot more strategic and proactive in procurement. Staff will leverage existing spend to achieve desirable community goals, while working in alignment with community values and maximizing returns for taxpayers,” said Mayor Baird.

The mayor added that the decision was quite simple after hearing about the concept from consultant and area resident Sandra Hamilton, the former business manager to John Furlong. Hamilton, accompanied by Cumberland Councillor Jesse Ketler, spoke at the Union of BC Municipalities Conference on the topic of Social Procurement and Economic Development.

“Sustainability at VANOC meant doing the right thing” said Hamilton. Over the last thirty years the environmental movement has done an excellent job of educating and increasing awareness surrounding the importance of developing more sustainable practices. This has led to considerable changes in behaviours and societal norms. Environmental considerations in government procurement have now become normalized. Everyday we see certifications, like LEED, Fair Trade, Organic and others.

“Social procurement knowledge is a tremendous legacy of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic & Paralympic Winter Games, and is already required by law in countries all across Europe; it is a more strategic approach to government procurement that works to better leverage every tax dollar for added social value and community benefit. We now know that changing the language and structure of a contract, quite literally has the power to change lives. Procurement can be a powerful force for good in society,” said Hamilton.

Find out more about Cumberland’s social procurement framework.

Source: The Village of Cumberland

CO-AUTHORED WITH NANCY NEAMTAN

Walmart is not Greenpeace. It may do its bit for greening, just as Greenpeace has promoted a product called Greenfreeze (for refrigerators). But Walmart is a business, in the private sector, while Greenpeace is an NGO, in the plural sector (civil society). Shareholders own Walmart; nobody owns Greenpeace. That matters.

This seems clear enough. But these days, in between these two examples, we find all sorts of organizations pushing the line between business enterprises and social associations: businesses that engage in social activities and associations that engage in economic activities. Does that mean this line no longer matters? Some people believe so. We do not. We believe that ownership matters.

As individuals, it is easy enough to balance our time between the economic and the social: for example, doing business in our working hours and volunteering for social activities in our private time. But how about organizations? True, every one has multiple intentions, some financial, others social. Greenpeace has to meet its budgets while focussing on protection of the environment, and Walmart wants to be seen as socially responsible while focussing on returns for its shareholders. But can organizations balance economic imperatives with social needs so that neither dominates?

At the extremes are corporations that concentrate on the profit-maximizing “Shareholder Value” (restricting their social activities to keeping within the letter of the law) and NGOs that concentrate exclusively on their social missions. In between, we list below five forms of organizing that seek some combination of the social with the economic, two with a priority for private profit, three with a priority for social impact.

Socially Responsible Companies Here we refer to companies, big and small, that act in socially responsible ways, beyond any claims of CSR. Their intentions are clearly profit driven, but they acknowledge a belief in acting beyond the letter of the law.

In fact, a popular mantra these days is that “it pays to be good”, or, if you like, that companies “do well by doing good” (which suggests that the social is pursued for purposes of the economic). Some companies do succeed at this, but are these more numerous than the ones that do well by doing bad—whether by being criminally or legally corrupt? There is no win-win wonderland out there, any more than there is justification for the opposite, popularized dogmatically by Milton Friedman, that a business has no business attending to anything but its business.

Benefit Corporations B Corps and other new legal structures such as Community Interest Companies (CICs) have a double bottom line: social alongside economic. In effect they seek to have their social cake while eating the financial profits. In the USA, B corps are certified—as one such company put it, “to provide a ‘general public benefit’, which ‘means a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole,” subject to an annual assessment. This particular company does note that the B Corp law in its U.S. State (California) “does not require any particular score on such assessments…” Indeed, shareholders have the “dissenters’ rights” to cancel this status.

Hence the forms above do not quite balance the social with the economic. Both fall on one side of the line, operating in what can be called the Investor Economy. We can describe them as economic enterprises with social concerns beyond CSR. But their intentions are ultimately profit-driven. Their good social intentions notwithstanding, when push comes to shove shareholder ownership does matter. On the other side of the line is the true Social Economy, where organizations tilt the other way.

Cooperatives Cooperatives are businesses too, but with a major difference. They are owned by their workers, by their customers, or by individual producers (as in farmer cooperatives)—not as investors, but as members, each with a single share that cannot be sold to anyone else. In cooperatives, it is the members who matter, first and foremost. Recognizing the primacy of people over capital, it is one person, one vote. A new form of co-op, called solidarity, with multi-stakeholder membership and a non-profit status, is emerging as one of the fastest growing sectors of the social economy.

This is not to deny that some cooperatives lose their way, for example by becoming obsessed with profit. But that can be true of all these forms of ownership, as when a management pursues its own social agenda beyond what the shareholders are prepared to accept.

Community Enterprises Here we enter the realm of what could be considered intrinsically social enterprises. These too are businesses, but owned by no-one—they are often referred to as “not-for-profit.” Of course, they had better make surpluses to sustain themselves. But social needs, for example to serve the constituencies that gave rise to them (e.g., creating local employment or responding to some cultural need), are paramount.

It is not an accident that cooperatives as well as community enterprises average longer lives than privately-owned businesses. While businesses are usually started by individual entrepreneurs for personal gain, social enterprises usually arise in response to collective needs, often in identifiable communities. Because of a resulting “collective heritage”, their potential to offer a more sustainable model of economic development merits careful attention.

NGOs with Economic Activities Here we return to the Greenpeace example, or the Kenya Red Cross that has built hotels to help fund its more basic social missions. In effect, this form can be seen as the mirror-opposite of the socially responsible corporation: these are fundamentally social organizations, but with commercial activities. They operate in the Social Economy, not the Investor Economy, so that when push comes to shove, it is the social intentions that matter.

Can we have our social cake and eat the economic results too? Every one of the positions above has its own legitimacy—in its appropriate context. But we must be careful not to mix them up. Just as we require businesses to run primarily as businesses, to supply us with certain types of goods and services, so too do we need social economy enterprises that serve social and environmental needs while, for instance, creating jobs in the economy.

But what about some new hybrids that are appearing, such as companies with limits on return to investors or wage gaps, and joint ventures between cooperatives, non-profits, and private businesses? It is too soon to tell how these will fare, but we do need to experiment as much as possible, given that the traditional, publicly-traded corporation is running into so many problems.

We also need to introduce one word of caution here. The Balanced Scorecard—an effort to include multiple performance measures, social and economic, on the bottom line—cannot be balanced because, as discussed in last week’s TWOG, things economic are inevitably easier to measure than things social.

The differences at the margin between the economic and the social can be subtle, but for many of our most important human endeavors, subtle can be significant. Pursuing a profit is not the same as meeting a budget; respecting the environment is not the same as marching against global warming. (Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop, didn’t think so when she picketed a Shell station. When she sold out her company to l’Oréal, she claimed that the company would respect her values. We have yet to see any l’Oreal executive picketing a Shell station.)

As one of us has argued in a book called Rebalancing Society as well as in a number of these TWOGs, the plural sector is key to achieving balance in societies that have tilted far out of balance, in favour of profit-driven forces. We need to reinforce the influence of this sector, and that will not happen so long as it is encouraged to play in a game whose dice are loaded, or worse, allowing commercial enterprises to take over its space. In fact, with a dire need to rethink economic development, these forms of organizing found in the plural sector—collective and community—can help point the way.

Since ownership matters, let us celebrate all of its forms—investor-owned, member-owned, and non-owned—but with each in its appropriate place within the economy. So choose your priority—and respect the other!

Original Source

© Henry Mintzberg and Nancy Neamtan 2015. Nancy Neamtan is strategic advisor and former CEO (1996-2015) of the Chantier de l’économie sociale, an organisation dedicated to the promotion and development of the social economy in Quebec.

Click here to read his new book “Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal Beyond Left, Right, and Center”

UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT 2015

September 26th, 2015, New York

Speaking Notes for the Interactive Dialogue “Fostering sustainable economic growth, transformation and promoting sustainable consumption and production”

MADANI KOUMARE, Economist, President, National Network for the Promotion of Social and Solidarity Economy (RENAPESS-Mali), Member of the African Network for the Social and Solidarity Economy (RAESS), Member of the Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of the Social Solidarity Economy (RIPESS)

Download the pdf version of the speaking notes

Madani Koumaré, Mali National Network for the Social and Solidarity Economy (RENAPESS), during the interactive dialogue in the UN

Governments, international cooperation agencies, NGOs and international solidarity associations spent nearly four decades developing and implementing in the least developed countries strategic plans against poverty or for poverty reduction. Ready-made solutions have not been conclusive, and their social costs greatly exceed the expected development impacts.

As an organization promoting the social and solidarity economy, we believe it is time to change the paradigm, and that from now on, the efforts need to be directed towards the creation of decent income for the most vulnerable. As such, our work consists of generating and supporting initiatives that create for vulnerable people, who are not incapable persons, promising opportunities to affirm their talents of social entrepreneurs.

The economic and financial crises have clearly shown the limits of the dominant system, while providing opportunities for social and solidarity economy organizations to assert alternatives and to demonstrate that there is another way to think about international economic relations and practices, harmoniously articulating economic rigor and human development.

In such, the trend of economic growth that has been visible in Africa for more than five (5) years, did not materialize everywhere into improved socio-economic indicators.

Poverty and inequality in access to basic social services and to economic opportunities persist, especially for youth, women, the elderly and people with disabilities.

It is in this context that since 2003, RENAPESS-Mali works to catalyze production and processing activities with a high added value that are based on the use of techniques and technologies accessible to small farmers, fishermen and craftsmen. We have clearly shown that this is an avenue for improving access to health, education, food, housing and decent jobs for the thousands of young people and women who, for reasons of economic insecurity and conflicts, usually caused by deficits of political and economic governance, are forced into exile and migration to destinations where they are very quickly disenchanted when they make their way, with very little means, through the deserts and oceans.

To achieve the new development goals for 2030, Member States undertaking commitments for the sustainable development agenda must develop and implement locally policies and concrete social actions to encourage:

applied research on technologies suited to small users capabilities;
initiatives and expertise for innovative practical projects in the areas of renewable natural resources, agriculture (food security and sovereignty), crafts, mining, so as to make them models of sources of economic growth that preserve the ecosystems.

It is with these views that RENAPESS, with the use of solidarity mechanisms of access to finance and a technical support tailored for each initiative, has allowed the insertion of almost one thousand women with economic and social initiatives in sectors as diverse as promoting and adding value to local food products, preschool education, poultry and livestock farming, the production of cosmetics… and that is, only in 2015.

With a rising collective awareness on the challenges of sustainable development, we must make the right to development an imperative to boost a new order in international cooperation and solidarity. The foundations of this right will be the dialogue between the partners and the co-development of concrete structuring lines of action on the ground.

In this historic summit, we call for the creation of a real global alliance of social and non-governmental organizations and international cooperation institutions to promote new opportunities for sustainable inclusive growth (job and income creation, collective social infrastructure…).

The post-2015 agenda must include clear strategies for global and local governance, intended to help the poor countries in the development of autonomous capabilities for using more responsibly their natural resources and allocating the resulting resources to economic, social and cultural development programs that respect the environment.

The dynamics initiated in several African countries and in my country, Mali, in particular, consisting of the co-construction of public policies by governments and civil society like RENAPESS, already encourage the promotion and exchange of best practices, international discussions and pooling of expertise with various different networks, such as the Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of Social Solidarity Economy (RIPESS) with the approach of a shared vision.

Likewise, we encourage more Member States to get involved in the International Leading Group on the Social and Solidarity Economy and to support the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy

Finally, a few questions:

How can we build new, more equitable relations of international cooperation?
Can we believe that the time for action has come when we all agree with Saint Exupéry, when he said that “We do not inherit the earth from your ancestors: we borrow it from our children?”

Let’s work together, continuously, to repair the historic responsibility and to comply with our moral obligation and citizen’s duty to preserve the environmental, economic and social dimensions of development for future generations!

SOURCE: RIPESS