15 minute read

SUSTAINAIBILITY

from Policy Guideline Sale della Terra March21

by UNDP ART Initiative

from Policy Guideline Sale della Terra March21, page 12

Article from: Policy Guideline Sale della Terra March21

PHASE 1. GATHERING KEY ORGANIS...

SUSTAINAIBILITY

Insights from the case study

The sustainability dimension is intrinsic to the Consortium chosen strategy: each awarded project carried out first by the social cooperatives and then by the Consortium was intended to trigger the set-up of self-sustainable activities operating in the local territory, i.e., new community cooperatives which today amount to 6, while other 4 are planned in the near future. In fact, while the Consortium experience began with a 100% reliance on public funds destined to welfare services, at present it has reached a relevant economic autonomy. In fact, its investment in productive activities such as hotels, agricultural productions and value chains, shops, restaurants, craftsmanship and more now allows the Consortium to rely, at least for 50%, on its own revenues, while the other half still intercepts public welfare funding to carry out its social inclusion projects (i.e., health budgets and SPRAR for the community cooperatives). The Consortium aims at maintaining a collaborative, “balanced” and not over-reliant relationship with the public bodies. The latter entails the co-design and co-managing of social inclusion and work integration projects. The Consortium future perspective is geared more towards sharing and inspiring other territories rather than just growing in terms of activities, products and services, staff or revenues. Its vocation is that of permeating surrounding localities which share or have the potential of sharing the same welcoming and inclusive culture. In fact, nowadays the Consortium member cooperatives operate in four different Italian regions. Although sharing the same vision and culture, the latter have developed somewhat different experiences as they build on contextualized local needs and motivations. For example, in one case activities are mainly focused on the social integration of migrants, while, in others towards, on the regeneration of abandoned and uncultivated land.  Design, implement and invest in activities and projects which are able to self-sustain over time: i.e., entrepreneurial activities pursued with fitted organizational models such as social enterprises, community cooperatives.  As much as possible, maintain a

“balanced” and not over-reliant relationship with the public bodies and funds. Prefer the co-design and co-management approach rather than mere execution of social inclusion projects.  Future perspectives may not simply be those of growing in terms of activities, products and services, staff or revenues, but also in sharing one’s own best practice and success in order to inspire other territories to imitate and replicate the same development strategy although tailored to local needs.  Can the sustainability dimension be integrated in all activities’ design and implementation? Is it possible to escape from a project-oriented approach to a more entrepreneurial approach generating selfsustainable activities operating in the local territory?  Are key actors able to maintain a “balanced” and not over-reliant relationship with the public bodies they collaborate with? Can they dialogue in a position of co-designers and co-managers of social inclusion projects?  Which are the future perspectives? Are they geared more towards internal growth or towards inspiring other territories with a common local development strategy?

Suggested actions Self-assessment questions

4. KEY DETERMINANTS FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION AND REPLICABILITY

Categories

ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS

SOCIAL CAPITAL Description

 People experiencing social and economic exclusion.  Organizations which can carry out social and welfare programs and/or entrepreneurial activities aimed valorising the territory and/or at employing people experiencing social and economic exclusion (such as work integration social enterprises/social cooperatives) able and willing to work under a common umbrella organization (i.e., a consortium), hence sharing a common vision and local development strategy.  Clients of the abovementioned organisations (i.e., Work-

Integration Social Enterprises, cooperatives or similar organizations), whether private consumers, public or private subcontractors (such as, for example, the local municipality subcontracting public services), hence constituting a market demand.

 Private companies as business partners in the local value chain.  Third sector actors and organizations working for the same social purpose and vocation, hence social inclusion and local development (i.e., groups of volunteers, citizen associations, religious entities carrying out charitable initiatives and more).  Public entities and bodies at various levels (i.e., municipal level, regional level, ministerial level) supporting, through tendering processes, the entrusting of public and welfare services to third sector organizations working for social inclusion.

 External funders devoted to supporting initiatives and projects with a social purpose.

 Solid and collaborative territorial network encompassing a wide range of stakeholders, such as clients, business partners, welfare service providers, suppliers, third sector organizations building on mutual trust, collaboration, credibility and strong Self-assessment questions

 Who are those living a condition of social exclusion in your context? Do they have the resources and means to access the workforce? Do they have job opportunities?  Are there work-integration social enterprises or similar organizations in your local context carrying out an entrepreneurial activity aimed at valorising the territory and/or employing people experiencing social and economic exclusion, able and willing to work under a common umbrella organization (i.e., a Consortium)?  Are there clients, whether private or public consumers/subcontractors willing to purchase your offered products and services in your local context?  Are there private companies/organizations which can be strategic business partners/suppliers in the local value chain in your local context?

 Are there third sector actors and organizations in your local context working for the same social purpose and vocation, hence social inclusion and local development (i.e., groups of volunteers, citizen associations, religious entities carrying out charitable initiatives) which can potentially be strategic partners?  Are there public entities and bodies at various levels (i.e., municipal level, regional level, ministerial level) in your context which can entrust you the delivery of public services and welfare services (i.e., through public tendering processes)?  Are there external funders devoted to supporting initiatives and projects with a social purpose which could be willing to provide you with the necessary funding?

 Can the Consortium count on a collaborative, trusted and supported multi-stakeholder territorial local network (i.e., business partners, welfare service providers, suppliers, third sector

engagement with the social/environmental vocation and mission.

 The presence of a social culture which is inclusive and welcoming towards all citizens, regardless of their social and economic condition, country of origin, background history or any other physical, sensorial or cognitive impairment. In other words, the presence of a culture which acknowledges that centring a local development strategy on social inclusion can unlock new opportunities for multi-dimensional wellbeing for all.

HUMAN CAPITAL  Strong social vocation, motivation and engagement  Strong willingness to collaborate and to join forces in order to achieve a greater social impact.  Strong entrepreneurial mindset and skills able to set up selfsustaining and revenue-generating activities.  Strong sector-specific competence, expertise and know-how.

GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK  A Consortium of social enterprises (or similar organizations) builds, first of all, on a shared objective and social mission, on a strong collaboration and coordination among its members and the core willingness to join forces in order to maximize the social impact.  A Consortium can have different institutional and organizational set up according to its functions. The latter are mainly identifiable in provision of support services to its member cooperatives, (i.e., administrative services, advice, training, facilitation of access to credit, etc.); political representation; and an entrepreneurial function mainly by acting as a general contractor. To this purpose, the

Consortium defines: - the ensemble of activities to be carried out by the central body of the Consortium on behalf of its member organi zations; - the organizational set-up entailing the central body and the set of rules and procedures governing the HR management systems as well as the management of the strategic planning and monitoring, and the information system; - the Consortium staff; - the Consortium assets and management.

organizations)?  Is there an inclusive and welcoming social culture in your context which can acknowledge that centring a local development strategy on social inclusion can unlock new opportunities for multi-dimensional wellbeing for all?

 Are the Consortium members strongly motivated and engaged with the social mission? Are they willing and able to effectively collaborate to achieve a greater social impact? Do they have the technical, sector-specific and entrepreneurial capability and expertise?

 Is the social mission strongly shared by all the organizations members of the Consortium? Are the latter willing to collaborate and coordinate with each other to achieve the social mission and to maximize the social impact?  Can the organizations members of the Consortium agree on a functional and structured organizational and institutional set up defining its governance model?

- the set-up of internal regulations in regard to the methods of access, withdrawal or exclusion from the Consortium; the contributions each Consortium member ought to pay for the services and activities carried out for them; the regulation of internal competition among members.

INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK  A legal framework recognizing the legal form of work-integration social enterprises (and their Consortium).  A public welfare system providing funds for personalized projects aiming at the social re-integration of particular categories of socially excluded people.

ECONOMIC RESOURCES  The existence of a market demand for the produced goods/offered services is the most fundamental condition for any entrepreneurial organization, especially if having the vocation to provide job opportunities for socially and economically excluded people.  The demand for produced goods and/or offered services may also come from public bodies and institutions at different levels, hence providing public funds through tendering processes entrusting subcontracted public or welfare services.  Funds can also be obtained from external funders supporting initiatives and programs with social purposes.  Tangible assets such as available/unused/abandoned premises and land which are free-of-charge and/or conditional to carrying out initiatives with social purposes provided by, for example, public bodies, pastoral organizations, private citizens, third sector organizations, private companies.  Is there a legal form in your context recognizing an entrepreneurial organization’s social/environmental mission (i.e., social enterprise, social cooperative or other forms of enterprise which can benefit from an ad hoc fiscal and regulatory regime and recognition for their social mission)? Does it also recognize their formal collaboration in the form of a Consortium? If not, which legal form in your local context is the best suited to carry out entrepreneurial activities by a coordinated group of organizations with a social inclusion mission?  Is there a public welfare system and relative tools (i.e., dedicated funding mechanisms) in your context recognizing and supporting the social inclusion of people belonging to fragile and vulnerable social categories? If yes, can you access these tools and mechanisms in support to your social inclusion projects and activities? If not, are there other similar support systems and frameworks set up by private, third sector, or international cooperation actors and organizations?

 Is there a market demand for the produced goods/offered services by the Consortium in your local context?  Is there a public demand for the produced goods/offered services by the Consortium in your local context? Hence, are there public funds that can be intercepted to finance your work-integration activities?

 Are there available external funds coming from organizations supporting initiatives and programs with social purposes in your context?

 Are there tangible assets which you can intercept, such as available/unused/abandoned premises and land provided by, for example, public bodies, pastoral organizations, private citizens, third sector organizations, private, which can be strategic to carry out your initiatives? Are there intangible assets which can be recovered, for example local ancient crafts and traditions?

 Intangible assets such as the recovery of local ancient crafts and traditions.

BASIC INFRASTRUCTURES  At least basic infrastructure needed to carry out the entrepreneurial activity and service provision on the part of the members of the Consortium (i.e., social enterprises, agricultural cooperatives, or similar organizations).

SERVICES  Technical support to constitute and run the Consortium (i.e., legal, fiscal support).  Is your local context furnished with the basic infrastructures allowing to carry out the work-integration/entrepreneurial activities?

 Are there organizations/individuals that can provide technical support to constitute and run the Consortium?

5. DRAWBACKS AND RISKS

DRAWBACKS AND RISKS

Which are the main risks that may arise?

When activities scale up and day-to-day management and implementation demand growing energies and work, there is a potential risk of losing sight of the pursued social vision and mission over time.

When collaborating or accessing public funds/support there is a risk of becoming over dependant on the public sector and of losing decisional and operational autonomy.

One of the greatest challenges in the growth phase of a social cooperatives/consortium of social cooperatives is building a brand identity and a strong credibility. This entails being able to meet a market demand and market performance. COPING STRATEGIES

Which are the best strategies that could be implemented in order to cope with and/or prevent these risks?

 It is crucial that the organization’s overarching vision continues to be actively pursued and strongly shared among the Consortium members and staff.

 As much as possible, it is necessary to maintain a “balanced” and not over-reliant relationship with the public bodies and funds. This entails preferring the co-design and comanagement rather than mere execution of social inclusion projects.

 To face the market credibility challenge a constant high-quality service provision/ production performance is necessary.

6. FINAL REMARKS

 Value-added of this model and case-study as a driver for sustainable human development and SDG localization

Consortium of social cooperatives can, indeed, represent a potential driving force for sustainable human development. In fact, as each of its member organisations actively addresses social needs and social inclusion, the Consortium model potentially allows them to coordinate their single efforts, scale their impact and promote a systemic effect on the territory. In other words, the Consortium of social cooperatives enables “social” economies of scale, in the sense that it can cut costs by centralizing strategic planning and management, external communication and internal information system, HR management, administration, facilitate credit access and other core entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, it allows for a greater contractual weight than single cooperatives when participating to tendering processes, whether public or opened by other types of organizations. In turn, this enables to access a greater pool of opportunities in terms of increased, more differentiated and higher quality service delivery and project implementation as well as increased marke t opportunities for work-integration social cooperatives. Consequently, more beneficiaries can be targeted and reached, more people experiencing social and economic exclusion can be trained and employed. In addition, Consortiums also give the possibility to include, under the same governance structure, different organizations, such as social cooperatives, social enterprises, cooperatives, companies, in order to implement specific local development projects and strategies. In broader terms, Consortium of social cooperatives can contribute to maximizing territorial social impact as they can leverage more resources in order to carry out a more overarching and systematic development policy and vision that goes beyond and encompasses the direct social outcomes of a single social cooperative. The ensemble of coordinated and coherent actions of a multitude of territorial organization pursuing a strong and shared social mission and vision generates a potential for a systemic and innovative change in the local economic, social and welfare systems as a whole. The analysed case study is an illustrative example in this regard as the “Sale della Terra” local development strategy based on social inclusion has been indeed endorsed and welcomed by surrounding municipalities which have adhered to the Welcoming Small Municipalities manifesto launched by the Consortium. Hence, the latter has gained territorial credibility able to inspire and convince surrounding public bodies to endorse its strategy. In addition, the Consortium was able, together with other territorial stakeholders as well as the families of people with disabilities, to advocate for the advancement and implementation of the Health Budget reform on the part of the local public service provider. This means that the Consortium gained credibility and successful experience has the potential to bring about change, to accelerate reforms and social transformations also the public institutions. Moreover, new cooperatives have joined the Consortium while operating in different neighbouring Italian regions and addressing local needs and offering tailored services. This is emblematic of the suitability of the Consortium of social cooperatives model which allows pursuing systemic and coherent local development policies while providing context-specific activities and services tailored to specific territorial needs.

 Final determinants to be considered when implementing this model in other contexts.

The organizational model of a Consortium of social cooperatives (or similar organizations) allows for a flexible and adaptable response to localized territorial needs, hence showcases a high potential for successful application in different contexts. In other words, it is a versatile and suitable model that provides an

organizational umbrella to local organizations pursuing a common human development vision. However, an underlying and fundamental assumption for the implementation of this model is that these territorial actors and organizations (i.e., social cooperatives, cooperatives, social enterprises, companies) share the same understanding of human development as well the same strategy to achieve it (i.e., through social inclusion and social cohesion). Moreover, these actors should be willing to collaborate and join forces to achieve this social vision. As the analysed case study shows, it was the founding social cooperatives’ decision to form the Consortium once realized that they were sharing a common history, a common purpose and a common strategy. In addition, these actors were already carrying out activities in strong coordination and synergy and acknowledged that formalizing this coordination under a formal umbrella organization could bring about more benefits and allow them to achieve a greater impact. Other relevant determinants for the implementation of this model are the building of territorial social cohesion and social capital, as well as the capacity building of main stakeholders. Also, for the model to generate local impact, it is important to develop the capacity to dialogue, collaborate and partner with multi-level and multi-actor territorial stakeholders. In a way, creating a Consortium is, indeed, a bottom-up process stemming from local, active and motivated organization, rather than a top-down set-up. For this reason, in our process analysis, the creation of the Consortium comes somewhat at the final stage (Phase 3) of the process instead of the beginning (Phase 1 or Phase 2) as it built from pre-existing and active organizations (social cooperatives) which, eventually, came together and joined forces.

USEFUL CONTACTS

UNDP ART GLOBAL INITIATIVE

Contact person: Andrea Agostinucci; Raffaella Garutti