DISCUSSION PAPER

for a renewed Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of country throughout Victoria, their ongoing connection to this land and water and we pay our respects to their culture and their Elders past, present and future.

We acknowledge Aboriginal self-determination is a human right as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Building on the foundations of Aboriginal Self-Determination, we are committed to developing strong and enduring partnerships with Aboriginal communities that will contribute to growing a prosperous, thriving and strong Victorian Aboriginal community.

Throughout this document the term Aboriginal is used to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

ARTIST Dixon Patten, Yorta Yorta and Gunnai

This artwork depicts the department and its commitment to developing the economy by helping to create Aboriginal employment opportunities, supporting inclusion and economic prosperity and thriving Aboriginal communities.

The bigger circle in the middle represents the broad work of the department and its eight different Groups within the department working together to achieve this.

The pathways represent the opportunities for the Aboriginal community to achieve personal and economic prosperity and improved employment outcomes.

The various smaller circles represent the different mobs within the Aboriginal community and the footprints represent the diversity of knowledge, skills and resources the community have.

The artefacts represent our traditional economy and are a reminder of our trade/barter system(s) and the connection to our cultural practices and ceremonies.

The emu and kangaroo tracks represent the departments commitment to moving forward, as these animals can’t walk backwards.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

1

Table of contents

Overview 2

Introduction 2

What is in the discussion paper? 2

Have your say 3

Context 4

Social and economic impacts of Victoria’s social enterprises 4

The impact of COVID-19 on Victoria’s social enterprises 5

Defining the policy scope 5

Theme 1: Skills and capability development 6

Theme 2: Access to affordable and appropriate capital 7

Theme 3: Growing the market for products and services 9

Theme 4: A more cohesive and connected ecosystem 11

Theme 5: Effective social impact and performance measurement 13

Conclusion 15

Sources 17

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

2

Overview

The Victorian Government is conducting a broad sector consultation to gain a wide range of views and perspectives to inform the development of the next iteration of the Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy.

IntroductionLaunched in 2017, the current Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy lapses in June 2021. The Strategy has strengthened the partnership between the Victorian Government and the sector to support the State’s social enterprises to grow and thrive. Victorian social enterprises continue to find innovative solutions to some of our most pressing challenges and deliver a wide range of social, environmental and economic outcomes for Victoria.

Important work is underway to build on the achievements of this first Strategy and design a renewed Social Enterprise Strategy in order to tackle both persistent and emerging challenges and realise the full potential of the sector beyond 2020.

That is why the Victorian Government has committed to renewing its commitment to the sector through an updated Strategy, recognising the unique role that social enterprises can play in creating a more inclusive economy for all Victorians. The new Strategy will build on experience and evidence to date, and identify key priorities and focus areas for the future. This consultation will guide the work of the Victorian Government to ensure we are working towards a new Strategy that best encourages and enables social enterprises to prosper and deliver social, economic and environmental benefits.

What is in the discussion paper?This discussion paper is to inform and support the development and future directions of a renewed Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy. It is informed by work undertaken by the Centre for Social Impact (CSI), Swinburne University on the value and impact of social enterprises in Victoria, and a review of existing evidence, research, key issues and gaps.

Also considered in this paper are findings from a comprehensive evaluation of the current Strategy completed by KPMG in August 2020. The evaluation considered the effectiveness, achievements and outcomes of the current Strategy, and offered recommendations and opportunities for consideration in future sector support.

This discussion paper presents five key themes based on a comprehensive review of existing evidence and practice relevant to each theme and provides the basis for consultation through the Engage Victoria portal.

The themes of this discussion paper are:

Skills and capability development;

Access to affordable and appropriate capital;

Growing the market for products and services;

A more cohesive and connected ecosystem; and

Effective social impact and performance measurement.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

3

Have your sayThe Victorian Government is committed to developing an evidence-based Social Enterprise Strategy that is informed by consultation with social enterprise practitioners and the broader social enterprise sector.

During October 2020, the Victorian Government is inviting you to have your say via the Engage Victoria portal where you can post a comment on the ideas wall, respond to any of the five key themes, or make a written submission. If you have questions or want to learn more about this project please contact us at SEInclusion@ecodev.vic.gov.au.

There are questions throughout this paper to prompt your thinking on each of the themes. You may also wish to consider broader questions, including:

1. Has the discussion paper broadly captured the challenges and opportunities facing social enterprises in Victoria? Is anything missing?

2. What do you think has worked well in the current Strategy that could be built on in the next Strategy?

3. What do you think should be the priorities for the Victorian Government?

4. What strategies are required to promote greater recognition of Victorian social enterprises and the benefits of social and economic inclusion?

5. Is there anything else you would like to add for consideration in the development of a new Strategy?

This paper provides an overview of key themes for consideration. By providing a starting point for discussions, it is hoped this paper will prompt thoughtful conversations to identify and shape opportunities to build on the momentum and achievements of the current Strategy. Your feedback will contribute to the development of the renewed Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

4

Context

Social and economic impacts of Victoria’s social enterprisesVictorian social enterprises contribute an estimated $5.2 billion to the Victorian economy and create 60,000 jobs for Victorians - including 12,000 jobs for people with disability, 4,000 jobs for long-term unemployed people, and 985 jobs for Aboriginal Australians.

Social enterprises generate many positive impacts, including: job creation – with the net employment effect for new social enterprises being larger than that of commercial firms; local economic development and provision of services in thin markets, particularly in rural and regional communities; improved health and wellbeing; and increased social inclusion for some of the most marginalised members of the community. In addition to delivering positive social impacts, Victorian social enterprises are as efficient and productive as other small to medium enterprises.

Social enterprises in Victoria are diverse, using a range of structures and business models, and fulfilling a range of social purposes in response to the needs of different communities, regions and social groups. Almost half of Victorian social enterprises target their support toward a specific geographic community, and most of that support is for Victorians.

The Map for Impact project commissioned by the Victorian Government as part of the current Social Enterprise Strategy – remains the most comprehensive census of Victorian social enterprises to date and conservatively estimated that, in 2017, Victoria was home to at least 3,500 social enterprises operating across more than 4,000 locations. The three most common social purposes of Victorian social enterprises listed on the Map for Impact are to:

• Create opportunities for people to participate in their community;

• Provide needed goods or services to a specific area1; and

• Generate income to reinvest in charitable services or community activities.

The most cited target beneficiaries of Victorian social enterprises in 2017 were a particular geographic area, disadvantaged men and women, and people with disability. The majority of Victorian social enterprises (73%) are small (fewer than 20 employees), while 22% are medium (20-200 employees) and 5% are large (more than 200 employees).

Victorian social enterprises operate across all industries, but a high proportion are part of the service economy, including 29% in Cultural and Recreational Services, 20% in Retail Trade and 15% in Health and Social Assistance.

1. It’s possible that some of the differences in the proportions of social enterprises with a certain social purpose are due to changes in the methodology of maintaining the social enterprise map, as well as changes related to the social enterprises that have joined or left the map since 2017.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

5

The impact of COVID-19 on Victoria’s social enterprisesCOVID-19 has significantly affected the operating environment and markets of the Victorian and Australian social enterprise sector. Social enterprises operating in some service-based industries such as events, catering and cafes have lost substantial income and trade due to COVID-19 impacts, prompting some to pivot their model, such as the Moving Feast collaboration and Free to Feed’s Brave Meals. Others have experienced significant increase in demand and have had to adjust production and delivery channels, infrastructure and staffing to meet what may be temporary changes in consumer behaviour. More than half of Victorian and Australian social enterprises operate in service-based industries and this presents a risk to many social enterprises in the context of COVID-19 as businesses operating in the service economy are among those most affected.

Defining the policy scopeThe current Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy is the first of its kind in Australia and represents the strongest framework for investment in the social enterprise sector by any Australian government. The Strategy prioritises driving employment participation as part of inclusive economic growth.

The current Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy draws on the Finding Australia’s Social Enterprise Sector research in defining social enterprise as organisations that are: led by an economic, social, cultural, or environmental mission consistent with a public or community benefit; derive a substantial portion of their income from trade; and reinvest the majority of their profit/surplus in the fulfilment of their mission. This definition is broadly consistent with those adopted in Britain, Canada, Scotland and the European Union.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

6

THEME 1:

Skills and capability development

In the past, Victoria’s social enterprises have called for greater access to opportunities for skills and capability development. While social entrepreneurs and social enterprise managers are highly resourceful, social enterprises can face many operating challenges. These include: inherent tensions between profit and social impact in many business models; working in market-failure contexts; complex governance; diverse and sometimes competing stakeholder relationships; costs incurred to deliver the social purpose; challenges measuring and evaluating performance; staffing suitable to their hybrid goals; and difficulty accessing appropriate capital. All of these challenges affect the skill and capability needs of social enterprise founders, managers and directors and extend beyond ‘content knowledge’ to the development of a very wide range of competencies.

In Victoria, social enterprise capability development occurs informally through learning ‘on the job’ and through peer support, and is formally provided primarily by specialist intermediary organisations. Some professional services firms also provide advice and assistance on a commercial, low bono and pro bono basis, sometimes in partnership with specialist intermediaries, government or philanthropic funders.

Victoria and Australia saw strong growth in formal skill and capability building programs between 2010 and 2016, offered by organisations such as ACRE, Social Traders, Social Ventures Australia, The Difference Incubator and The School for Social Entrepreneurs. However, since 2017, there has been some contraction and concentration of intermediaries and development programs in Victoria, and a shift away from general and start-up focused development towards niche capability development in areas such as social procurement and social impact investing (SII) readiness. Running counter to this shift has been ACRE’s Breakout Accelerator for rural business, which ran in 2019/20 (not only for social enterprise) and the launch of the Swinburne Social Startup Studio in 2019.

Peer-to-peer support is usually informal and unpaid and occurs partly due to gaps in skill and capability development programs, driving those new to social enterprise to seek out well-known social entrepreneurs for advice. The establishment of the Social Enterprise Network of Victoria (SENVIC) is also providing structured opportunities for peer-based development and support (see Theme 4). More formal, accredited skill and capability development is available through Australian universities that offer degrees or specialisations focused on the social economy and social entrepreneurship. Many universities offer introductory subjects as part of wider degree programs, with specialist postgraduate programs offered at some institutions.

QUESTIONS: What are the current skill and capability development needs for Victoria’s social enterprises?

What models of delivering such development are working well and what changes are needed?

What future development needs should we anticipate as Victoria builds back from the shocks of recent bushfires and COVID-19?

What specific development challenges do regional and rural social enterprises face? How can these be overcome?

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

7

THEME 2:

Access to affordable and appropriate capital

In fulfilling their social goals, social enterprises typically operate in failed or thin markets and/or have cost structures that constrain their financial returns. At the same time, social enterprises face a number of challenges that affect their ability to access mainstream finance, and in many cases, social impact investment (SII)2. This results in many social enterprises being undercapitalised. The Map for Impact project highlighted that undercapitalisation is a major issue for many Victorian social enterprises, affecting their ability to grow, operate effectively, market themselves competitively, plan and forecast for the future, respond to market changes and take advantage of new opportunities. Undercapitalisation also renders many social enterprises especially vulnerable to economic shocks such as COVID-19; multiple retail social enterprises have anecdotally reported during the early stages of the pandemic having less than one month’s working capital available.

2. Social impact investment is defined as investments that (i) intentionally target social and/or environmental returns along together with financial returns and (ii) measure the achievement of both (see Social Impact Investing Taskforce 2019).

Social enterprises experience many of the same challenges accessing debt as other small to medium business, including a lack of sufficient assets and security against which to borrow. In addition, the relatively higher input costs and thinner profit margins associated with some social enterprise types – such as those seeking to generate employment for people who face multiple barriers to work – constrains their ability to build cash reserves, service loans within commercial finance timeframes and access finance from lenders that use traditional credit assessments. The majority of social enterprises in Victoria are incorporated as not for profits (NFPs), which can enable them to access a range of state and Commonwealth tax concessions, but also create some limitations in accessing external finance. First, NFPs are ‘asset locked’ and they cannot issue shares to generate equity capital.

Also, NFP directors, unlike for-profit directors, are generally unpaid but, like for-profit directors, are liable for any legal or financial failures of the company. As a result, they are unlikely to offer security in the form of a guarantee and may operate in a more risk averse way than their for-profit counterparts. This impacts on both the willingness of social enterprises to take on finance, and the availability of the finance itself, as unsecured debt at affordable rates is very difficult to find in Australia.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

8

As a result of these issues, social enterprises are in an unusual position: their trading activity presents an opportunity for some degree of finance beyond or in addition to donation/grant capital, however the constraints of the markets in which they operate and the needs of the cohorts with which they work often makes commercial finance and more readily available SII that expects market-rate returns, unsuitable. There is significant evidence both locally and internationally to suggest that social enterprises require capital that can variably respond to their specific needs – what is called ‘demand-led social finance’ – offering features such as low expectations of financial return, the ability for flexible repayments, is unsecured, long-term or ‘patient’ (generally in excess of five years), able to be combined with grant capital where necessary, and in which the investors are engaged and supportive, bringing non-financial assets such as advice and networks together in addition to capital.

A lack of appropriate and affordable capital is not a new challenge for the social enterprise sector. However, in both an Australian and global context, the available evidence suggests that the availability of appropriate capital is in fact contracting rather than growing.

To increase access to capital in an environment of scarcity, a small number of social enterprises have initiated ‘layered transactions’ which blend combinations of capital including: non-concessionary (with a market-rate of return), concessionary (below-market) and wholly concessionary (grants). However, these types of transactions are complex to design and manage and extremely resource intensive and are therefore beyond the capacity and risk appetite of most NFP social enterprises.

QUESTIONS: What types of external finance are most needed by Victorian social enterprises, and on what terms?

What current products and offerings are working and what is needed?

What role should the Victorian Government play in supporting social enterprises to access appropriate social finance?

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

9

THEME 3:

Growing the market for products and services

Social enterprises rely on their trading activities and income to achieve their social purpose, so market development is an essential component of social enterprise success. The Victorian social enterprise landscape is diverse; Victoria is home to in excess of 3,500 social enterprises operating in all Australian industries and a variety of markets.

A distinction is often made between business- to-business markets, in which products and services are traded between organisations, and business-to-consumer markets, in which a segment of individual consumers purchase products and services directly. Different strategies are often applied to operating in these two broad market types. Past research suggests that around 30% of Victoria’s social enterprises operate on a business-to-consumer basis, particularly those in Cultural and Recreational Services, Retail Trade and Health and Social Assistance. However, the economic shocks of 2020 are seeing some Victorian social enterprises diversifying or shifting into different markets, and anecdotal evidence from Social Traders indicates that some social enterprises are extending their product offerings to take advantage of social procurement opportunities (e.g. cafes that have extended their offering to corporate catering), which represent the main market development priority of the current Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy.

Social procurement

Social procurement – or using purchasing power to create social value above and beyond the goods, services, or works being procured (see Buying for Victoria) – is enabled in Victoria through the Victorian Social Procurement Framework, Aboriginal procurement target and state commitments to the Indigenous Procurement Policy.

The Victorian Social Procurement Framework, which aims to support the expansion of social procurement across all government procurement activities, is widely considered the most ambitious contemporary social procurement policy initiative in the world and includes sustainable social enterprise as one of its priority groups of ‘social benefit’ suppliers.

There is limited current published evidence of the impacts of social procurement; past research has found that social procurement through major infrastructure initiatives can produce net job growth, and that social procurement can support increased service quality. Victorian Government data released in the Social Procurement Framework Annual Report 2018-19 identified growth in the volume of government purchasing from social benefit suppliers and increased employment hours for target groups created through this spend. Past research conducted in Victoria has also shown that social enterprise certification – offered in Australia by Social Traders – is valuable to both government and corporate social procurers. As at September 2020, 399 social enterprises have been certified nationally, 216 (54%) of these being Victorian. A number of challenges to effective participation in social procurement by social enterprise have been identified, including:

• Limited understanding of differing capabilities and practices between buyers and social benefit suppliers;

• Asymmetries between demand and supply, with social enterprises being typically small to medium businesses and under 70%3 of Victorian social enterprises operating business to business activity;

3. This figure is an estimation based on Map for Impact responses regarding the number of social enterprises actively engaged in government contracting.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

10

• Risk accruing disproportionately to social benefit suppliers because they are at the end of the supply chain; and

• Procurers’ knowledge of social procurement requirements and ease of access to the social benefit supplier system.

Growing consumer-market demand

Whilst the Victorian Social Procurement Framework aims to support growth in business-to-business and business-to-government social enterprise markets, a considerable proportion of Victorian social enterprises are primarily business-to-consumer enterprises or operating in both markets. Strategic approaches to growing market demand for business-to-consumer products and services are limited, as these require mass-market, consumer awareness campaigning.

One such response to the challenge of growing consumer-market demand for social enterprise products was the development of a number of different online ‘directories’. These platforms were designed to increase awareness and general consumption of social enterprise products and services. However, none are currently active.

While there is some evidence that directories and lists4 assist in the promotion of business-to-business products and services, particularly as a tool to aid social procurement, there is no known documented evidence of the effectiveness of directories as a tool to grow consumer-market demand. Challenges exist on both sides of the market: on the demand side, absence of existing consumer knowledge about social enterprise impedes intentional purchasing from social enterprise; and, on the supply side, the digital enterprise capabilities of individual social enterprises – while in some cases experiencing an upswing due to the changing market demands of COVID19 – also needs to increase to maximise the benefits of online sales channels.

4. Such as the Victorian Government’s Map for Impact online map and database of social enterprises and Social Traders’ list of certified social enterprises

QUESTIONS: What is needed to assist social enterprises to grow their market opportunities in Victoria in general and in rural and regional markets in particular?

What benefits and challenges are social enterprises experiencing in participating in the Victorian Social Procurement Framework and how could challenges be addressed?

What could the Victorian Government do to assist social enterprises to scale or otherwise increase their capacity to meet new social procurement demands and opportunities?

What opportunities exist for business-to-consumer social enterprises to grow their markets in Victoria, and how should Government help?

What examples exist of successful strategies for growing markets for business-to-consumer social enterprises and what could we learn from these?

What could the Victorian Government be doing to support certification of Victorian social enterprises?

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

11

THEME 4:

A more cohesive and connected ecosystem

An effective social enterprise ecosystem extends beyond the social enterprises themselves, to include professional networks, support organisations, relevant government departments, partners and supporters, philanthropy and investors, beneficiaries and customers, and research providers. Connectivity is also important between and within the regions, and between regional and metropolitan Victoria. Such connectivity requires effective intermediation, as well as peer-to-peer opportunities to connect and collaborate.

The role of intermediaries

Intermediaries help connect supply and demand and supporting innovation in emerging markets. In the case of social enterprise and social innovation, intermediation is typically focused on: building market opportunities and promoting social enterprises to (individual and organisational) buyers and government; increasing the skills and capability of social enterprises to engage with these markets and to access the resources (e.g. financial, legal) they need to work effectively; and increasing opportunities to scale impacts through joint ventures, amalgamations and replication.

Social finance intermediaries (such as SEFA and Social Ventures Australia) build capacity of social enterprises to take on finance, bridge gaps in the needs of demand and supply, and broker between supply and demand to ensure capital flows. Social procurement intermediaries (such as Social Traders) broker between buyers and suppliers, which is valuable in the early stages of intermediation for buyers and continues to be so for social enterprises.

There has been limited research or evaluation of the benefits of intermediaries to social enterprises, but what is available finds that social enterprises value intermediary support, especially when the intermediation addresses enterprise needs holistically rather than focusing narrowly on, for example, technical challenges. In Australia, we have relatively few specialist social enterprise and innovation intermediaries, with some intermediation offered or brokered through funders (e.g. philanthropic foundations) and peer networks.

Public and philanthropic investment into intermediaries in Australia has not been consistent and very few intermediaries are able to achieve independent financial sustainability where they work with organisations that have limited capacity to pay. The financial challenges faced by intermediaries can result in the patchy and unstable provision of intermediation support as intermediaries are forced to focus around specific ecosystem niches, such as social procurement and social impact investment, where there is greater likelihood of organisations being able to pay for services. Map for Impact identified a contraction and concentration of intermediaries in Victoria, despite also identifying an ongoing need for training and development support for all stages of the social enterprise development lifecycle (see Theme 1).

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

12

Social enterprise networks

The Victorian social enterprise network ‘SENVIC’ was launched in mid-2019 with financial support from Equity Trustees and the Victorian Government, as a priority initiative of the Victorian Social Enterprise Strategy. SENVIC aims to “build a connected community of social enterprises, to facilitate access to learning and development opportunities, and to give practitioners an independent and collective voice” (SENVIC n.d.). It was formed by eight Victorian social enterprises with Social Traders. Currently unincorporated, SENVIC is hosted by CERES and The Australian Centre for Rural Entrepreneurship (ACRE).

As at September2020, SENVIC has 213 unique social enterprise members. SENVIC is also contributing to a coordinated effort by state-based networks to provide a collective national voice for social enterprise as part of the Alliance of Social Enterprise Networks Australia (ASENA).

Approximately half of Victoria’s social enterprises are based in regional and rural Victoria. Different regions have different characteristics that can offer unique advantages, and local leadership and connections are important ingredients for regional innovation. In Australia, regional areas are often underestimated and treated as homogenous when they are in fact very diverse, each with their own characteristics, strengths and assets, local knowledge and agency. Regional and local organisations are already doing a lot in communities to provide services and support businesses to adapt to the new circumstances they are facing, but these efforts are often self-funded, with little resourcing.

QUESTIONS: What is working and what are the limitations of current social enterprise intermediation in Victoria?

What is the value of sector networks for social enterprise and how is this working in Victoria?

What is needed to ensure social enterprise development is well-supported in Victoria’s regions?

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

13

THEME 5:

Effective social impact and performance measurement

Outcomes-based investment, market development, and fulfilment of social goals typically require social enterprises to measure and communicate their social impacts. Alongside effective monitoring of financial performance, social impact measurement can be important to external stakeholders and highly valuable internally to inform decision making and process improvement.

Despite social impact reporting being an increasingly common requirement of funders, social procurers, and investors, it is less common for these stakeholders to fund its measurement. Most Australian community sector organisations report that their impact (or outcomes) measurement is funded internally, while the Map for Impact project found “there is a need to build capacity and reduce or subsidise the costs of measuring social impact” among Victorian social enterprises. Without adequate resourcing and capabilities, social impact measurement risks becoming fragmented, disempowering, and unsupportive of enterprises’ actual social missions.

Complexity, diversity and cost

Social enterprises and their stakeholders are diverse, and their specific measurement needs, access to resources, and internal capacity for performance and impact measurement varies.

Map for Impact found that 62% of Victoria’s social enterprises measured their social impact, which is similar to national figures. Most large organisations (those with annual income greater than $1 million) report measuring their outcomes (82%), while a smaller proportion (although still a majority) of smaller organisations (annual income less than $250,000) also undertake social impact measurement (65%). This split reflects the primary barriers to social impact measurement for social enterprises – organisational complexity and cost.

Social enterprise impact measurement is complex because there is no single best approach – the appropriateness of different measurement approaches depends on the organisation’s purpose, needs and resources, the requirements of its external stakeholders, and what is feasible and acceptable for the people who are required to provide or collect data. CSI Swinburne’s Social Enterprise Impact Lab involving five Victorian social enterprises found that each had different approaches to impact monitoring and measurement, and used different indicators to measure common impact domains, such as employment. While attempting to standardise outcomes measurement could risk loss of specific and accurate data collection on the impact areas that are important to particular social enterprises, various evaluations and user consultations have found that customisable resources to support impact measurement by social enterprises could be useful.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

14

In addition to complexity, cost is another challenge for social impact measurement by social enterprises. With thin profit margins and meeting needs not fulfilled by mainstream businesses, social impact measurement can be viewed as a ‘nice to have’ and acceptance that this work forms a central part of the cost structures of social enterprise is not universal. There are several current projects in Victoria, Australia and internationally that seek to respond to the need for resources to support social impact measurement by social enterprises and the wider for-purpose sector. In addition to the Social Enterprise Impact Lab, examples of existing or development-stage platforms include: the Amplify: Indicator Engine; and the Social Impact Measurement Toolbox. International examples include the Inspiring Impact site from the UK and the Common Approach to Impact Measurement project from Canada. Social Traders certified social enterprise, Australian Social Value Bank’s impact measurement tool measures net social value in economic terms and is being offered as a fee-for-service solution to social impact measurement requirements of social procurement suppliers.

Challenges of utilising these tools include: the quality and fit for purpose of their underlying methods; the (mis)application of technical solutions to complex problems involving organisational capability and capacity to effectively measure social impacts; the diverse needs of stakeholders demanding impact measurement data; and cost of access for user pays options.

Beyond impact measurement at the organisational level, understanding the aggregate characteristics and impacts of the Victorian social enterprise sector can help us advance shared learning and public awareness of the sector, and inform evidence-based decision making about the most effective levers for strengthening its scale and impacts. Under the current Social Enterprise Strategy, the Victorian Government commissioned the Map for Impact project in 2017. There is currently no routine assessment and reporting on the characteristics and impacts of the Victorian social enterprise sector.

QUESTIONS: What are current examples of good practice in social impact measurement by social enterprise and what can we learn from these?

What sorts of resources or tools are needed to increase and improve social impact measurement and reporting by social enterprises in Victoria?

What role should the Victorian Government play in supporting effective social impact measurement by social enterprises and/or the impacts and characteristics of the sector as a whole?

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

15

Conclusion

The material presented in this discussion paper seeks to provide a starting point for discussion that will continue with the consultation and development of the new strategy. It is not possible to capture every issue or need in this brief paper but it is hoped the paper will prompt broader conversations on the issues, opportunities, available evidence and gaps related to building a thriving social enterprise ecosystem and a more inclusive economy.

Contributions to the strategy consultation and submissions responding to questions raised in this discussion paper are encouraged to help shape the future directions of Victoria’s Social Enterprise Strategy. Questions relating to each theme are summarised below.

THEME 1:

Skills and capability development What are the current skill and capability development needs for Victoria’s social enterprise?

What models of delivering such development are working well and what changes are needed?

What future development needs should we anticipate as Victoria builds back from the economic shocks of recent bushfires and COVID-19?

What specific development challenges do regional and rural social enterprises face? How can these be overcome?

THEME 2:

Access to affordable and appropriate capital What types of external finance are most needed by Victorian social enterprises, and on what terms?

What current products and offerings are working and what is needed?

What role should the Victorian Government play in supporting social enterprises to access appropriate social finance?

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

16

THEME 3:

Growing the market for products and servicesWhat is needed to assist social enterprises to grow their market opportunities in Victoria in general and in rural and regional markets in particular?

What benefits and challenges are social enterprises experiencing in participating in the Victorian Social Procurement Framework and how could challenges be addressed?

What could the Victorian Government do to assist social enterprises to scale or otherwise increase their capacity to meet new social procurement demands and opportunities?

What opportunities exist for business-to-consumer social enterprises to grow their markets in Victoria, and how should Government help?

What examples exist of successful strategies for growing markets for business-to-consumer social enterprises and what could we learn from these?

What could the Victorian Government be doing to support certification of Victorian social enterprises?

THEME 4:

A more cohesive and connected ecosystemWhat is working and what are the limitations of current social enterprise intermediation in Victoria?

What is the value of sector networks for social enterprise and how is this working in Victoria?

What is needed to ensure social enterprise development is well-supported in Victoria’s regions?

THEME 5:

Effective social impact and performance measurement What are current examples of good practice in social impact measurement by social enterprise and what can we learn from these?

What sorts of resources or tools are needed to increase and improve social impact measurement and reporting by social enterprises in Victoria?

What role should the Victorian Government play in supporting effective social impact measurement by social enterprises and/or the impacts and characteristics of the sector as a whole?

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

17

Sources

Abbott, M, Barraket, J, Castellas Erin, IP, Hiruy, K, Suchowerska, R & Ward-Christie, L 2019, ‘Evaluating the labour productivity of social enterprises in comparison to SMEs in Australia’, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 179-194, https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-09-2018-0064.

ACRE 2020 ‘Our Vision’, Australian Centre for Rural Entrepreneurship website viewed 9 July 2020, https://acre.org.au/about-acre/.

Al Taji, F.N.A., Bengo, I., 2018, The Distinctive Managerial Challenges of Hybrid Organizations: Which Skills are Required? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1543724.

ASENA 2020a, Alliance of Social Enterprise Networks Australia, ASENA, viewed 2 July, https://www.asena.org.au/.

ASENA 2020, Social Impact Investing Taskforce: ASENA Submission - May 2020, Alliance of Social Enterprise Networks Australia https://www.asena.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ASENA-Submission-May2020.pdf.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J., 2012, ‘Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?’ Revista de Administração 47, 370–384, https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1055.

Barraket, J 2019, ‘The Role of Intermediaries in Social Innovation: The Case of Social Procurement in Australia’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1624272.

Barraket, J 2013, ‘Fostering the wellbeing of immigrants and refugees?: Evaluating the outcomes of work integration social enterprise’, in Social Enterprise: Accountability and Evaluation Around the World, pp. 102-119, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203102916/chapters/10.4324/9780203102916-17.

Barraket, J, Eversole, R, Luke, B & Barth, S 2018, ‘Resourcefulness of locally-oriented social enterprises: Implications for rural community development’, Journal of Rural Studies, 2018/10/30/, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.031.

Barraket, J. & Loosemore, M. 2017, ‘Co-creating social value through cross-sector collaboration between social enterprises and the construction industry’, Construction Management and Economics, 36(7): 394-408, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01446193.2017.1416152.

Barraket, J, Mason, C & Blain, B 2016, Finding Australia’s Social Enterprise Sector 2016: Final Report, Centre for Social Impact Swinburne and Social Traders, Melbourne, Australia, https://www.socialtraders.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FASES-2016-full-report-final.pdf.

Barraket, J., Muir, K., Lasater, Z., Dunkley, M., Mason, C., Joyce, A. and Blain, B, 2016, Social Enterprise Development & Investment Funds (SEDIF): Evaluation Report. Report for Australian Government Department of Employment, Canberra, Australia, https://docs.employment.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sedifevaluation.pdf.

Barraket, J, Qian, J & Riseley, E 2019, Social Enterprise: A people-centred approach to employment services, https://www.csi.edu.au/media/WestpacFoundation_CSI_report_Aug2019.pdf.

Barraket, J & Yousefpour, N 2013, ‘Evaluation and Social Impact Measurement Amongst Small to Medium Social Enterprises: Process, Purpose and Value’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 447-458, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8500.12042.

Battilana, J., Lee, M., 2014, ‘Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises’, ANNALS 8, 397–441, https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615.

Bengo, I, Arena, M, Azzone, G & Calderini, M 2016, ‘Indicators and metrics for social business: a review of current approaches’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2015.1049286.

Bloom, P. N. and Dees, J. G. 2008 ‘Cultivate your Ecosystem’, Stanford Social Innovation Review; Stanford, pp. 47–53. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/cultivate_your_ecosystem.

Bopp, C, Harmon, E & Voida, A 2017, ‘Disempowered by Data: Nonprofits, Social Enterprises, and the Consequences of Data-Driven Work,’ Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, 3608–3619, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3025453.3025694.

Bruneel, J., Moray, N., Stevens, R., Fassin, Y., 2016, ‘Balancing Competing Logics in For-Profit Social Enterprises: A Need for Hybrid Governance’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 7, 263–288, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2016.1166147.

Burkett, I. 2010, Social procurement in Australia: A compendium of case studies. Retrieved from Social Procurement Australia, http://socialprocurementaustralasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SocialProcurementinAustralia-CaseStudyCompendium.pdf.

Burkett, I. 2013, Reaching underserved markets: The role of specialist financial intermediaries in Australia. Knode, Foresters Community Finance and Social Traders, https://www.socialtraders.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Reaching-Underserved-Markets-2013.pdf.

Buhariwala, P, Wilton, R & Evans, J 2015, ‘Social enterprises as enabling workplaces for people with psychiatric disabilities’, Disability and Society, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 865-879, https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1057318.

Buying for Victoria, No Date, Understanding social procurement, https://www.buyingfor.vic.gov.au/understanding-social-procurement.

Callis, Z, Seivwright, A & Flatau, P 2019, Outcomes Measurement in the Australian Community Sector: A National Report Card, Social Impact Series, Western Australia, https://www.csi.edu.au/media/Social_Impact_Series_10.pdf.

Caló, F, Roy, MJ, Donaldson, C, Teasdale, S & Baglioni, S 2019, ‘Exploring the contribution of social enterprise to health and social care: A realist evaluation’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 222, 2019/02/01/, pp. 154-161, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619300073.

Calò, F, Teasdale, S, Donaldson, C, Roy, MJ & Baglioni, S 2018, ‘Collaborator or competitor: assessing the evidence supporting the role of social enterprise in health and social care’, Public Management Review, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1790-1814, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2017.1417467.

Carleton University 2020, Common approach to impact measurement, viewed 30 June, https://carleton.ca/commonapproach/about-us/.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

18

Casasnovas, G., Bruno, A., 2013, ‘Scaling Social Ventures: An Exploratory Study of Social Incubators and Accelerators’, Journal of Management for Global Sustainability 1, 173–197, https://doi.org/10.13185/JM2013.01211.

Castellas, E, Barraket, J, Hiruy, K & Suchowerska, R 2017, Map for Impact: The Victorian Social Enterprise Mapping Project, Hawthorn, Australia, https://mapforimpact.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Map-for-Impact-FINAL-REPORT_2.pdf.

Castellas, E. I-P., & Findlay, S. 2018, Australian Impact Investment Activity and Performance Report 2018. Sydney: Responsible Investment Association of Australasia, https://responsibleinvestment.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Benchmarking-Impact-2018.pdf.

Centre for Social Impact Swinburne 2020, Social Enterprise Impact Lab, https://www.seil.com.au/.

Centre for Social Impact UNSW, No Date, Amplify: Indicator Engine, https://amplify.csi.edu.au/.

CSI Swinburne 2019, Inquiry into regional Australia: Submission 70, Parliament of Australia, https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b94e8cf6-8cc5-475f-86cb-0ea0f4e33129&subId=675249.

Elmes Aurora, I. 2019, ‘Health impacts of a WISE: a longitudinal study’, Social Enterprise Journal 15(4): 457-474, https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2018-0082.

Elmes, A & Vanguard Laundry Services 2020, Vanguard Laundry Services: 2019: Three years of Business, Vanguard Laundry Services and the Centre for Social Impact Swinburne, https://www.amp.com.au/content/dam/amp-au/documents/general/vanguard2019-evaluation-report.pdf.

Erridge A. 2007, ‘Public procurement, public value and the Northern Ireland Unemployment Pilot Project’, Public Administration, 85(4), 1023–43, 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00674.x.

Eversole, R 2015, Regional Development in Australia: Being Regional, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315687261.

Eversole, R., Barraket, J. and Luke, B. 2013, ‘Social enterprises in rural community development’, Community Development Journal, 49(2), 245-261, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26166155?seq=1.

Farmer, J, De Cotta, T, Kamstra, P, Brennan-Horley, C & Munoz, SA 2019, ‘Integration and segregation for social enterprise employees: A relational micro-geography’, Area, vol. 2020; 52, pp. 176– 186, https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12567.

Farmer, J, De Cotta, T, McKinnon, K, Barraket, J, Munoz, S-A, Douglas, H & Roy, MJ 2016, ‘Social enterprise and wellbeing in community life’, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 2016 2019-09-06, pp. 235-254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2016-0017.

Germak, A.J., Robinson, J.A., 2014, ‘Exploring the Motivation of Nascent Social Entrepreneurs’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 5, 5–21, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2013.820781.

Haugh, H., Rubery, E., 2005, ‘Educating Managers to Lead Community Enterprises’, International Journal of Public Administration 28, 887–902, https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-200067384.

Hazenberg, R, Seddon, F & Denny, S 2014, ‘Investigating the Outcome Performance of Work-Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs): Do WISEs offer ‘added value’ to NEETs?’, Public Management Review, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 876-899, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.759670.

Inspiring Impact 2020, Impact practice made simple, Inspiring Impact, viewed 30 June, https://www.inspiringimpact.org.

Jenner, P 2016, ‘The role of the intermediary in social enterprise sustainability: an international comparative study’, The Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends, vol. 14, no. 1, 2016 2016-07-20, pp. 23-40, http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:20140.

Justice Connect 2017, Submission to Treasury Social Impact Investment Discussion Paper, https://static.treasury.gov.au/uploads/sites/1/2017/08/c2017-183167-Justice-Connect.pdf.

Leeming, K., 2002, ‘Community businesses - lessons from Liverpool, UK’, Community Development Journal 37, 260–267, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/37.3.260.

Leijonhufvud, C., Locascio, B., Pemberton, A., & Kaur, K. 2019, Catalytic Capital: Unlocking More Investment and Impact. New York: Tideline, https://tideline.com/wp-content/uploads/Tideline_Catalytic-Capital_Unlocking-More-Investment-and-Impact_March-2019.pdf.

Loosemore, M., Higgon, D., & Osborne, J. 2020, ‘Managing new social procurement imperatives in the Australian construction industry’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(6), 10.1108/ECAM-11-2019-0643.

Luke, B, Barraket, J & Eversole, R 2013, ‘Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures: Performance evaluation of social enterprise’, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 234-258, https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034.

Macaulay, B, Roy, MJ, Donaldson, C, Teasdale, S & Kay, A 2017, ‘Conceptualizing the health and well-being impacts of social enterprise: a UK-based study’, Health Promot Int, Mar 28, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax009.

Meltzer, A, Kayess, R & Bates, S 2018, ‘Perspectives of people with intellectual disability about open, sheltered and social enterprise employment: Implications for expanding employment choice through social enterprises’, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, 2018/05/08, pp. 225-244, https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-06-2017-0034.

Miller, T.L., Wesley, C.L., Williams, D.E., 2012, ‘Educating the Minds of Caring Hearts: Comparing the Views of Practitioners and Educators on the Importance of Social Entrepreneurship Competencies’. AMLE 11, 349–370. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0017.

Michaux, F., Lee, A., & Jain, A. 2020, Benchmarking Impact: Australian Impact Investor Insights, Activity and Performance Report 2020, Sydney: Responsible Investment Association Australasia, https://responsibleinvestment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Benchmarking-Impact-2020-full-report.pdf.

Minister for Innovation Medical Research and the Digital Economy 2019, Premier of Victoria in Official Committee Hansard, Inquiry into Regional Australia 2020, Commonwealth of Australia, Australia.

Mouchamps, H 2014, ‘Weighing elephants with kitchen scales: The relevance of traditional performance measurement tools for social enterprises’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 727-745, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2013-0158.

Moving Feast 2020, About Moving Feast, Moving Feast, viewed 30 June, https://movingfeast.net/about.

Mudaliar, A., Bass, R., & Dithrich, H. 2018, Annual Impact Investor Survey: 2018, New York: Global Impact Investing Network, https://thegiin.org/research/publication/annualsurvey2018.

Munoz, S-A, Farmer, J, Winterton, R & Barraket, J 2015, ‘The social enterprise as a space of well-being: an exploratory case study’, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, 2015 2019-09-06, pp. 281-302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-11-2014-0041.

DISCUSSION PAPER FOR A RENEWED VICTORIAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE STRATEGY

19

Nicholls, A and Emerson, J 2015, ‘Social finance: capitalizing social impact’ in Nicholls, A, Paton, R and Emerson, J (eds) Social finance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-42, https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198703761.001.0001/acprof-9780198703761-chapter-1.

Noya, A. (2015), “Social Entrepreneurship - Social Impact Measurement for Social Enterprises”, OECD Employment Policy Papers, No. 10, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrtpbx7tw37-en.

Official Committee Hansard: Inquiry into Regional Australia 2020, Select committee on regional Australia. Commonwealth of Australia.

Pache, A.-C., Chowdhury, I., 2012, ‘Social Entrepreneurs as Institutionally Embedded Entrepreneurs: Toward a New Model of Social Entrepreneurship Education’, AMLE 11, 494–510, https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0019.

Phillips, S. and Johnson, B. 2019, ‘Inching to Impact: The Demand Side of Social Impact Investing’, Journal of Business Ethics, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04241-5.

Seibert, K, Barraket, J & Elmes, A 2019, Submission 509: Submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into mental health, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology, 509, https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/241664/sub509-mental-health.pdf.

SENVIC, No Date, Our story, viewed 8 June, https://senvic.org.au/about-senvic/.

SENVIC 2020, Personal communication, 8th July 2020.

SENVIC 2020a, Surveys, Social Enterprise Network Victoria, viewed 9 June, https://senvic.org.au/influence/surveys/.

SENVIC 2020b, Your Voice, Social Enterprise Network Victoria, viewed 9 June, https://senvic.org.au/your-voice/.

Sharir, M., Lerner, M., 2006, ‘Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs’, Journal of World Business 41, 6–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.004.

Shaw, E., Carter, S., 2007, ‘Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes’, Jrnl of Small Bus Ente Dev 14, 418–434, https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000710773529.

Skipper, M 2018, ‘The best research is produced when researchers and communities work together’, Nature, vol. 562, no. 7, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06855-7.

Smith, W.K., Besharov, M.L., Wessels, A.K., Chertok, M., 2012, ‘A Paradoxical Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges, Leadership Skills, and Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and Commercial Demands’, AMLE 11, 463–478, https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0021.

Social Impact Investing Taskforce 2019, Social Impact Investing Taskforce: Interim Report 2019, Canberra: Australian Government, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/social-impact-investing-taskforce-interim-report.pdf.

Social Traders 2018, Social Traders launches certification mark for Australian social enterprise, Social Traders, viewed 9 June, https://www.socialtraders.com.au/social-traders-launches-certification/.

Social Traders 2020, personal communication, 8th July 2020.

Szijarto, B, Milley, P, Svensson, K & Cousins, JB 2018, ‘On the evaluation of social innovations and social enterprises: Recognizing and integrating two solitudes in the empirical knowledge base’, Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 66, 2018/02/01/, pp. 20-32, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917301416.

tebrakunna country, and Lee, E & Eversole, R 2019, ‘Rethinking the regions: Indigenous peoples and regional development’, Regional Studies, vol. 53, no. 11, 2019/11/02, pp. 1509-1519, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1587159.

Tracey, P., Phillips, N., 2007, ‘The Distinctive Challenge of Educating Social Entrepreneurs: A Postscript and Rejoinder to the Special Issue on Entrepreneurship Education’, AMLE 6, 264–271, https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2007.25223465.

University of Technology Sydney with Community Sector Banking, 2017, Social Impact Measurement Toolbox, https://www.communitysectorbanking.com.au/social-impact-measurement-toolbox.

Victoria State Government 2017, Social enterprise strategy. Victorian Government, https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1435868/10371_DEDJTR_EDEI_Social_Enterprise_Brochure_A4_WEB_FINAL.pdf.

Victorian Government 2019, Whole of Victorian Government social procurement framework: Annual report 2018-2019, https://content.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/social-procurement-annual-report-2018-19.pdf.

Vo, AT, Christie, CA & Rohanna, K 2016, ‘Understanding evaluation practice within the context of social investment’, Evaluation, vol. 22, no. 4, 2016/10/01, pp. 470-488, https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389016669447.

Ward, D. 2016, Private ancillary funds (PAF) trustee handbook, Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia, https://www.philanthropy.org.au/images/site/promos/PAF-Trustee-Handbook-Philanthropy-Australia-MFCo.pdf.

Ward, D. 2012, Public ancillary funds (PuAFs) trustee handbook, Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia, https://www.philanthropy.org.au/images/site/misc/Tools__Resources/Publications/PA_PuAF-Trustee-Handbook.pdf.

Ward-Christie, L. 2015, ‘Why Australian Social Enterprise Needs More Than Impact Investment’, Pro bono Australia, April 22, http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2015/04/why-australian-social-enterprise-needs-more-impact-investment.

Ward-Christe, L. and Moran, M., 2019, STREAT Enterprises Pty Ltd: A case study, Melbourne, Centre for Social Impact Swinburne and STREAT Ltd https://www.streat.com.au/sites/default/files/3._ward-christie_moran_2019_streat_enterprises_pty_ltd_case_study_of_2012_intevestment.pdf.

Wilkinson, C. 2014, A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe. Luxemhourg: European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=2149.

Wilson, E, Campain, R & Brown, C 2020, ‘’Measuring the outcomes of consumers of community services’,’ Impact 2020 Seminar Series, CSI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ_Gye0YX2o&feature=youtu.be.

Published by Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions 1 Spring Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Telephone (03) 9208 3799

September 2020

© Copyright State Government of Victoria 2020

This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

Authorised by the Victorian Government, Melbourne.

Designed by DJPR Design Studio

Disclaimer:

This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. While every effort has been made to ensure the currency, accuracy or completeness of the content we endeavour to keep the content relevant and up to date and reserve the right to make changes as required. The Victorian Government, authors and presenters do not accept any liability to any person for the information (or the use of the information) which is provided or referred to in the report.

Accessibility If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, please telephone 03 9651 8093 or email SEInclusion@ecodev.vic.gov.au. This document is also available in PDF and Word format at engage.vic.gov.au/social-enterprise-strategy

DJ

PR

1320

1_0

9/2

0