Is being green worth its weight in gold? Or will moral credit leave you bankrupt?

Sara Benwell 11.03am

Ethical investment is seriously hot right now. Last week was National Ethical Investment Week, the week where everyone is encouraged to put their money in funds that will save the world, or will at least not outright harm it.

There’s a broad range of ethical investments: from those focusing on being environmental, sustainable or just generally socially responsible, to those simply avoiding funds that might be considered ethically dodgy, such as weapons, alcohol, pornography or gambling.

The Government has been pushing social investing over the last two years, supporting ‘impact investing’, and launching Big Society Capital, an initiative designed to take an estimated £400 million from dormant bank accounts to help develop the social investment market. It is also launching the world’s first Green Investment Bank to provide financing for low carbon investment projects (see Alex’s previous coverage of it here).

It’s not just the Government. There is strong evidence of increasing consumer demand for greener investments. In fact Triodos, a bank specialising in ethical investments, has seen a 78 per cent increase in people wanting to open savings accounts. It has also doubled the money coming into its accounts each year. Furthermore, according to Eurosif, the Brussels-based European Sustainable Investment Forum, the amount of money in the UK invested in a “sustainable and responsible” manner has reached an estimated £275 billion.

The obvious reasons behind these funds are morality-based, but an investment needs to make money too or it’s just a waste of time. Yet can ethical investments offer real returns?

They are somewhat subjective, insofar as they depend on what any particular individual considers to be morally important, and the process is far from straightforward, but that doesn’t mean there’s not money to be made. Ethical investments, bank accounts, pensions and mortgages are now available to most consumers.

However, renewable energy has been a disaster for ethical investors recently, with wind and solar power systems companies being among the worst-performing stocks in the last few years.

For instance, the Guardian reported that Vestas, the Danish wind turbine maker, had cost investors almost 95 per cent of their money. The article also reported that the BlackRock New Energy Investment Trust has fallen 49.9 per cent since 2007. Furthermore, negative screening of so-called ‘sin funds’ mean that investment products are less diversified and there is less recourse to defensive funds, which can lead to volatility. These are just some amongst a multitude of examples, illustrating why many people are wary when it comes to ‘being ethical’ with money.

Nonetheless, there is some evidence that it’s possible to be ethical and still taking care of your money.

One theory is that companies on the right side of the ethics debate are less likely to fall out with regulators, end up in expensive court battles or face strikes or boycotts of their products from consumers. All of these can impact reputation and even share price, so ethical companies should look like good long term prospects.

This is illustrated in the pensions industry, where an increasing number of funds are declaring support for the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), an institutional investor initiative for ethical investment. The number signed up has jumped by over a quarter in the last two years.

Furthermore, there are those out there who believe a carbon-based economy is unsustainable, for obvious reasons. This too suggests that forward looking ethical investments are likely to do well in the long term.

Another thing to consider is as public opinion shifts, and we care more and more about everything from whether our eggs are free range to whether we invest ethically, it seems likely that the value of companies who can prove to stakeholders that they have sustainable values will rise.

It is important that the Government continues to support ethical investments, and it is encouraging that the public is beginning to demand how their money is made and at whose expense.

However, there must be further support and ambition from both the Government and the financial services industry if ethical investment can be sustainable. Meanwhile the Coalition should be wary about throwing money behind schemes that may leave people worse off, especially in a financial crisis. It’s all well and good being “ethical” but it will backfire if it costs people their pensions.

There are ethical funds that perform well, so perhaps the government should think about putting its money towards education, so that people are equipped with the knowledge to do the right thing – whilst also putting the pennies away for the future.

Follow Sara on Twitter @sarabenwell

TRG policy supper with Chris White MP

Chris White MP 7.16am

This evening I will be speaking at a Tory Reform Group policy supper in Westminster.

After seeing my Private Member’s Bill – the Public Services (Social Value) Act – pass into law earlier this year, I have been keen to make clear that this has to be part of a wider effort to promote civil society organisations and social enterprise.

If the Act is to be successfully implemented, then organisations on the ground need to feel empowered, to ensure it is used by local authorities and other public bodies.

In order to build a coalition behind the Act and behind using social value in general, we need to ensure that there is support in place and I believe that the Government has the opportunity to put that wider support within this Parliament.

I hope to discuss with TRG members about this, the role the Conservative party can play in articulating that vision and what role social enterprise and civil society has within that.

You can book tickets here http://www.trg.org.uk/events.html

Chris White was elected as the Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington at the 2010 General Election.

A One Nation defence of the Church of England

David Cowan 6.01am

At the beginning of Holy Week this year, David Cameron made another foray into religious affairs. It was a rare glimpse of that elusive aspect of the Prime Minister’s character - his Christian faith.

Mr Cameron’s most significant defence of Christianity to date was during the celebrations for the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible (see Jack’s and Daniel’s comments). He claimed:

“Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so… the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.”

It is Christianity’s conceptualisation of the nation that is at the heart of Mr Cameron’s moral code. This is evident in his vision for a ‘Big Society’, where responsibility, duty and community are most valued. And of course the institution that upholds the Christian faith and defends these values is the Church of England.

The local church is often at the heart of our communities. It provides spiritual support as well as voluntary assistance to charities, social enterprises and, importantly, schools.

The Church of England currently educates one million children in 4,800 schools, making it the biggest single provider of education in this country. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has reaffirmed the Conservative party’s commitment to supporting faith schools by urging the Church to run more academies.

Throughout the Conservative party’s long history, the defence of the established Church has been second nature. Christian morality has been a significant guide for many One Nation Conservatives, including Harold Macmillan, who said:

“If you don’t believe in God, all you have to believe in is decency. Decency is very good. Better decent than indecent. But I don’t think it’s enough.”

A Christian ‘fightback’ should be supported by One Nation Conservatives within the context of greater toleration. We live in a pluralistic society. Other cultures must be respected. Yet Christians have become somehow exempted from the toleration afforded to others and fair game for discrimination by aggressive secularists.

Wearing a cross at work, holding town hall prayers (see Jack’s comments on these pages), Norwich County Council’s banning of a local church from a community centre.

It is appalling that this victimisation of ordinary Christians is happening at the same time that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is allowed to stay in this country, be embraced by Labour’s London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone, and defend suicide bombing, wife beating and the violent persecution of Jews and homosexuals.

Discrimination against Christians has also been a defining feature of the debate about same-sex marriage, in which opponents are brazenly dismissed as homophobes. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, for instance, is opposed to gay marriage but supports civil partnerships and has certainly not expressed hatred towards homosexuals.

It also says a lot about the current state of the debate that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is forced to ban “gay cure” adverts from the capital’s red buses, while Christians offended by gay rights charity Stonewall’s campaign are denounced as bigots.

How can we possibly have a grown-up debate about an important subject such as same-sex marriage if senseless demonisation is allowed to trump rational discussion?

Whatever side you take, there is a principle at stake here. Toleration has to incorporate toleration of those people who we disagree with or believe to hold intolerant views. It is time for toleration in Britain to live up to Voltaire’s famous and apocryphal quotation: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Regrettably, Mr Cameron’s attempts to tackle aggressive secularism have been undermined by George Osborne’s recent blunders over the so-called ‘charity tax’ and ‘heritage tax’.

The Government is launching a formal consultation on charity tax relief and will hopefully heed the advice given by Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, on BBC’s Newsnight recently.

But we have yet to see if the Government will reverse its decision to slap a VAT bill of £20 billion on the 12,500 listed church buildings. There is already an e-petition with a growing number of signatures demanding that the VAT zero rate on alterations to listed buildings be revived.

This hit to charitable giving and listed buildings threatens irreparable and unnecessary harm to churches such as Wakefield Cathedral. Many churches stand as bastions of beauty and monuments to tradition. Several have stood since Norman times. It would be a crime against our common heritage to allow these tax policies to continue.

Once upon a time it could be said, with some truth, that the Church of England was ‘the Tory party at prayer’. David Cameron and other One Nation Conservatives should have the courage of their convictions to defend and praise the established Church’s role in the spiritual life of the nation and the wellbeing of communities; to fight for full religious toleration; and to conserve our precious buildings.

Follow David on Twitter @david_cowan

The Big Society has life in it still, but more must be done to avoid a repeat of Shaun Bailey’s My Generation

Samuel Kasumu 6.00am

The ‘big society’ was supposed to be the key Conservative policy that would tie the rest together. An underpinning philosophy that could rebuild communities, reshape public services and above all demonstrate that Conservatives could do compassion.

But this ‘big idea’ failed to capture the imagination of the public from the start. And the recent news that one of the first Big Society Ambassadors has has to close his charity can only pile further pain on the tarnished ‘big society’ brand.

Shaun Bailey is the talented community leader and former Conservative candidate. He represents a section of British society - black, urban, working class - that the Conservative party has struggled to engage with in the past. Having failed to win the Hammersmith constituency in 2010, Mr Bailey was signed up as one of the Prime Minister’s special advisers. Yet the excellent charity he founded, My Generation, has now closed.

My Generation’s mission was all about what the ‘big society’ stands for, and its closure is a sad loss for the communities of Hammersmith - but it may actually be the most important thing Mr Bailey does as a Big Society Ambassador. In having to close his own charity, he has demonstrated to the Government and to leaders of similar organisations that he understands and shares the same challenges faced by most voluntary groups today.

There is no doubt that funding has always been community groups’ biggest challenge. And today we are in the midst of an economic downturn, with funding ever harder to come by: there is less of it, and it is harder to access.

During the Labour party’s time in office we saw large amounts of money distributed through local and national government schemes. Grants were more readily available.

But in recent times, funding for services for the likes of children and young people has dried up because local authorities have no statutory obligation to deliver those services. Other lifelines such as the Future Jobs Fund have gone, meaning that many voluntary sector organisations no longer benefit from extra staff funded by the government.

So the voluntary sector faces many challenges and the long-term survival of many of these organisations cannot be guaranteed. Some might see this situation as tragic but I see it as more of an opportunity to create newer, better solutions. Like a game of chess, with an opponent thinking the game to be over, the ‘big society’ may yet have one more move to play.

The Government must look at new ways of reshaping the voluntary sector. I suggest setting up Big Society Academies to train community leaders and give them the skills to identify funding sources that still exist, as well as other key skills (former Labour and Lib Dem MP Paul Marsden wrote of similar things on these pages last summer).

This training could be delivered by companies on a pro bono basis (or even a form of payment by results). The passion of community leaders must be harnessed and supported by training from experts in various fields.

Some major corporations are already donating their time for free to train larger groups of voluntary sector staff and volunteers - but on a smaller scale. This must increase. There’s no doubting the CSR benefits in doing so.

There is a variety of different activities still funded by national and local government but to be able to receive any money many organisations have to be a bit more entrepreneurial. Something like the National Citizen Service offers funding of more than £1,000 for every young person that is attracted to it. This is a lot of money but currently only very big organisations such as the Prince’s Trust and vInspired seem to be winning the contracts.

So how can smaller voluntary groups participate in the delivery of such schemes? Some do, but not nearly enough to fulfil the aspirations of the ‘big society’.

Smaller voluntary groups will need to team up with bigger organisations if they are struggling to survive on their own. Some will seriously need to consider merging. The Government must play its part in revolutionising the voluntary sector, but without taking it over. Make funding available for community groups with fewer strings attached and less bureaucracy in the application stage.

The Prime Minister must also find a way to get those involved in the voluntary sector into paid employment. It should be said that Mr Bailey’s role as a Big Society Ambassador has been unpaid, and he therefore represented those many community leaders who do the work most people claim to be too busy to do, and sacrificing his own time without being fairly recompensed.

There must also be targeted funding available for communities to create solutions where there are gaps in public services.

The ‘big society’ still has the potential to empower us all to engage more with others in our own communities. But this will only happen when the Government supports the people that were involved in the ‘big society’ before it became the Conservative party’s ‘big idea’. More support is needed, more engagement is essential, and a more collective strategy is crucial if we are to avoid a repeat of Shaun Bailey’s My Generation.

Follow Samuel on Twitter @samuelkasumu

One Nation Conservatism is the best vehicle for reaching out to all parts of society

Samuel Kasumu 7.12am

Following the recent series of articles entitled ‘The Origins of Race Policy’ and the much critiqued piece that I wrote for ConservativeHome, time has come for me to articulate my own personal discourse on the matter of race and political representation. This is the first time I’ve officially disclosed my political views (though recently it has clearly become less of secret), as I have previously held positions where it would have been inappropriate to do so.

These roles varied from my time as vice-president of my students union in 2007; up to being the chief executive of a social enterprise representing thousands of members; and subsequently running the largest ever debate tour of its kind in the UK where I chaired a number of debates and heard thousands of people all over the country.

Those experiences, along with my political education through the Conservative Christian Fellowship, and through studying a Master’s in Ethnicity, Migration & Policy, have led me to the following conclusion: government is undoubtedly the most powerful institution in our natural world.

Government is what ensures resources are allocated effectively in order to fulfil good outcomes for humanity. It is also the main mechanism for protecting many of its stakeholders from various evils. Even within the most unconventional and evil of governments in certain nations there remains an element of order that could not exist without having any institution at all.

Government is essential, and politics is therefore the science that underpins it.

The challenge that all countries still face is this: what role should any government playin in ensuring all people are treated equally?

It is something that people across history have fought for and even given their life for. Today in Britain ‘equality’ is a term that has evolved to represent a variety of groups that are marginalised in various ways including ethnic communities, women, those from lower socio economic backgrounds, and people with disabilities. It can also incorporate themes such as sexuality.

Our mission should be to give a voice to those people who are marginalised in society. The hope is to see a balanced representation of people within power structures, particularly within the political classes. I believe that genuine equality can only ever come to pass when people from all backgrounds feel as if they can actively participate within our many power structures, including within government. The only way that this can truly be manifested is through the actualisation of a political system that is truly representative of the population that it presides over.

This is not simply a call for more Members of Parliament from non-traditional backgrounds, but a call for more people involved in politics at every level. There must be more people running for council seats, more members of local associations, more influential policy makers, and more political commentators from diverse backgrounds. Politics may be spotlighted on Parliament; but Parliament is far from being the place where the story starts or ends.

In May 2008, I decided to join the Conservative party. This wasn’t to say that I agreed with everything the party stood for; in fact it was probably quite the opposite. The Conservatives had huge potential to craft a new message about equality, something in many past instances it had failed to do. My personal work belongs within the Conservative party, however I will continue to mentor and support young people regardless of their politics.

I have never directly experienced any form discrimination or prejudice within the Conservative party, though I agree that the party can suffer from a crisis of image.

While I have had the privilege of engaging with some of the most fascinating people at various levels, I recognise that there remains some resistance to change. Some feel that by identifying any form of marginalisation we risk being counterproductive. Others feel that any call for equality would equal some form of attack on meritocracy. My reply to those people would simply be that meritocracy has actually always been a myth in many senses of the term. If you start any race with a head start how could you justify the outcome being fare? And if no one gives you the tools you need to run effectively where is the meritocracy?

My final thought is quite straightforward: no political party should have a monopoly over any type(s) of voter. Not only does this encourage complacency, but it also hinders innovation. It can also mean that when one Party is not in power certain areas of policy remain sidelined.

Solidarity should therefore be along policy lines at best, rather than simply party political allegiances. This continues to be the case for a variety of voters in Britain, and I believe that the message of One Nation Conservatism is the vehicle that can be best used to demonstrate that Conservatives can be a credible option for many people in the future. It is in this centre ground where elections are won.

I am still quite young, and no doubt as I learn more my thoughts will evolve. But for now my hope is that one day, like my hero Martin Luther King Jnr, I will be able to look back and say that I have served my generation, I have ensured progress, and I have fought a good fight.

Samuel is an award social entrepreneur and political commentator. He has previously been highlighted as a Future Leader by Powerful Media, and is the first ever GBA Young Star of Enterprise (CBI/ Real Business Magazine)

Follow Samuel on Twitter @samuelkasumu

So Ed Miliband is now a One Nation Conservative?

Nik Darlington & Alexander Pannett 10.09am

In a speech in London on Friday, Ed Miliband did something quite curious. He tried to emulate Tony Blair.

Mr Miliband’s latest tactic is to call for a “One Nation” approach to banking.

The Labour party leader wants banks to spend less time concentrating on bonuses and more time lending to small businesses and families. He has also called for more transparency and responsibility.

This is a sly attempt to steal the One Nation clothes of conservatism. It is exactly what Tony Blair set out to do when he positioned New Labour as the political “Third Way”, as noted by Nik on these pages last year.

Following a small spate of Blairite defections (see Paul’s cheeky overture), his own brother’s critical epistle, and *that* moment of booing at party conference, it is hard to know what to make of Mr Miliband’s reversion to the Blair political playbook.

If Miliband is going to adopt a truly One Nation approach to banking then he needs to do more than just devise gimmick headlines and populist rhetoric.

His only policy of substance - putting employees on to the remuneration committees of banks - is already in practice in Germany, where they still hand out large bonuses. It is not clear either how he will force banks to lend more to small businesses.

Mr Miliband also fails to understand that One Nation politics is about opening up opportunities and social mobility for the more disadvantaged in society rather than rabble rousing about excessive pay. To this end, the coalition has already stolen a march on him by implementing an innovative new approach to banking - the launch of Big Society Capital.

The Big Society Capital, formerly known as the Big Society Bank, was recently approved by the European Commission and it is hoping to be operational by the end of the first quarter of 2012.

This new bank will use assets in dormant bank accounts to invest in enterprises that provide social value. It will develop an investment market on the basis of positive social impact as well as financial returns. In so doing, the Big Society Capital will boost the ability of social enterprises, voluntary and community organisations to deal with social issues.

Such policies that concentrate on generating real social value, such as the Big Society Capital, are genuinely One Nation approaches to banking. Populist attacks on bonuses may earn some headline kudos but, considering the globalised market that banks operate in, it is not realistic to believe that British banks could compete with uncompetitive remuneration. 

Mr Miliband would do better to have a constructive dialogue with banks about increasing opportunities for small businesses and families rather than slinging invective. But that would require some well-considered policies.

While we thank Mr Miliband for the free publicity, we note that his Tory Reform Group membership fee has not yet been paid. We would kindly ask that he ceases from borrowing our ideas until he has properly been accepted as a member of the group.

And if he asks nicely, we may even lower his joining fee.  

Share this article on Twitter 

@NikDarlington

@alpannett

Does the future lie with social enterprises?

Alexander Pannett 10.30am

Last week, MPs voted through the Public Services (Social Value) Bill through to the House of Lords. 

If the Bill is made into law, it would change the way that public spending is carried out by councils.  Focus will shift from purely economic concerns to take into account social and environmental values as well.  By concentrating on social values, public services can become more efficient, sustainable and productive.  As the Government’s annual spend on commissioning and procurement stands at £236 billion, there can be huge opportunities for making lasting and wide-ranging improvements to the cohesion of society.

This marks a wider change where public services are being re-structured with services being allowed to spin-out from central governmant control and become accountable for their own allocation of resources.  These services are provided by enterprises driven by social value rather than shareholder value.

The potential for social enterprises is huge.  Some of the UK’s most successful companies have been structured with the social value of employee ownership in mind, such as the John Lewis Partnership and Loch Fyne Restaurants.

The UK now has a social enterprise sector worth more than £20bn a year, with strong and confident enterprises that range from Divine Chocolate and People Tree to Greenwich Leisure and HCT Group.     

Social enterprises formed as co-operatives also help to build a better world by giving their members a share of the profits and an equal say.  A generation ago, 50 per cent of the population owned 12 per cent of the wealth; today, inequality in the UK is at its highest since records began, with 50 per cent of the population owning just 1 per cent of the wealth.  Co-operatives and other social enterprises can be effective tools for reversing this trend.

However, they face many obstacles. One of the main issues for prospective spin-outs is the lack of specialist support advice.  The economic crisis created both a demand for specialist advice and also diminished public funding for the provision of such expertise.  On Tuesday, Cooperatives UK made an important step in meeting this demand for affordable specialist advice by releasing the final part of its Community Enterprise Toolkit.  The suite of resources provides provides community enterprises with free financial, legal and governance support.

Another issue for social enterprises is the lack of access to capital for enterprises that emphasise social return rather than capital return.  With banks facing challenges of their own, they have been reluctant to finance initiatives that do not bring returns in the more traditional, profit driven sense.  Government funding has also suffered due to fiscal cuts.

In response to this, the Coalition formed Big Society Capital to provide finance to social enterprises and voluntary organisations.  The BSC will receive its funding from an estimated £400 million in dormant bank accounts that has remained unclaimed for over 15 years and £200 million from the UK’s four largest high street banks. The initiative is due to be fully operational in early 2012 but it has already made its first investment in the Private Equity Foundation, an organisation whose mission it is to support disadvantaged young people into employment, education or training. 

Despite the enthusiasm for social enterprises, it is not yet clear whether they have realised some of their more ambitious visions.  The claim that social enterprises would bring a new outlook to business is difficult to qualify either in results or even in what “social return” actually means.

Do social enterprises have a unique ability to utilise volunteer labour or derelict buildings or to achieve more efficiency than profit-driven businesses?  It could be that their advantages are more about the commitment and loyalty of their workforces which are not able to be replicated on a large scale when social enterprises lose their local connections.

The absence of scale in social enterprises and a paucity of house-hold names demonstrates the difficulties for growth and consolidation.  Often the individuals who have the skills at starting such enterprises are uncomfortable with the need to move from more informal workplace cultures to the bureaucracy and accountability necessary to expand. Business models are also difficult to replicate in other communities where the social context and culture can vary dramatically.

Despite these concerns, it is clear that social enterprises and the move to prioritising social value have made the economy more diverse and dynamic. They have allowed for community needs to be catered for in a much more creative and successful way by public services. 

In the long term, social enterprises will likely prove their critics wrong. They are well established in industries that are projected to grow, such as healthcare and renewable energy. They receive support from across the political spectrum and from key individuals in business and the increased liberalisation of public services will create further opportunities. 

Whilst hurdles remain, social enterprises certainly have the innovation and flexibility to surmount them, just as any successful company manages to do.

For further information about the various social enterprise initiatives in the UK, visit the Social Enterprise UK’s website, which is the UK’s national body for social enterprise and represents a wide range of social enterprises, regional and national support networks and other related organisations.

Also see Social Enterprise London, a world-leading provider of training, research, networking and consultancy for social enterprise.

Share this article on Twitter  

The Big Society: Civil society and business must work together

Peter Holbrook 8.03am

The Big Society vision hinges on economic reform balanced with support for local and civic life and these cannot be addressed separately. We are told repeatedly about the roles of social enterprise, charities and communities in the Big Society, but what about private business? When are business leaders going to tell us how they will play their part in bringing about the Big Society? Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives simply won’t be enough.

Civil society and business must work together. They can no longer have competing goals, as has been the case for much of the last fifty years. The Big Society will succeed only if the Government tackles social and economic policy together. This is the way to get the country out of economic crisis and set us on the road to a sustainable recovery.

Yet at the moment we are travelling down the same old roads. Recent Government initiatives have been introduced to rebalance the economy and foster growth. They are designed to promote competitiveness and trade, and to include the Regional Growth Fund and Local Enterprise Partnerships, reviews of corporate taxation, intellectual property and regulation. At a tangent to these are policies designed to engage communities and civil society, and so to realise the Big Society vision; policies such as the ‘right to buy’ and ‘right to challenge’ in the Localism Bill, citizen action initiatives and the mutualisation of public services.

But where is the join? What happens when a group of citizens gets together to play their part in the Big Society and bids for a local facility? Or when a group of public sector colleagues gets together and decides to emerge as a mutual? Can they really walk into a high street bank and get a warm reception, from staff who know what they are talking about? Can they get the sort of lending rates they need? Will they be given the time and support they need to make these new and complex initiatives work? The Big Society Bank is one institution that can help but its capabilities are limited, with an investment value that is minute in comparison to high street banks and the City of London.

Social enterprises are more than worth the time and effort of the mainstream banks. Supported social enterprises have low failure rates. They have continued to grow throughout the recession. At the same time, they provide shared social value. They employ people who would otherwise find it difficult to get work. They build social capital in our communities. They are good businesses and great for our economy.

New legislation opens the way for a deluge of new social enterprises, which could revolutionise the UK economy. However, they will need a business community that understands their needs and is ready to support them. Economic and social policies must head in the same direction, not on a collision course. For this to happen, the business community is going to have to work with civil society a lot more closely and collaboratively in the future.

The Government cannot enforce this but by building bridges between economic and social policy, it can put us on the right road.

Peter Holbrook is Chief Executive of the Social Enterprise Coalition, which represents a wide range of social enterprises, regional and national support networks and other related organisations. You can visit their website here.

Share this article on Twitter