What can cultural leaders learn from social enterprise? Insights from a Clore Leadership collaborative learning enquiry set by the British Council
The British Council works extensively worldwide in creative entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship and cultural leadership. They have started to look closely at the interconnections between these three areas and to work on joint up approaches in social creative enterprise. The British Council would like to research the state of play in the UK where social enterprise models are being used in the arts and creative sector (and vice versa) and how this plays out in leadership, because there is little existing research available to date. August 2017
CONTENTS DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................................ 2 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES............................................................................................................. 4 COMMON LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES ..................................................................................................... 5 WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP .................................................................................................................... 6 LEARNING FROM SOCIAL ENTERPRISE .................................................................................................... 6 OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................................................................. 6 BARRIERS............................................................................................................................................. 8 SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN THE CULTURAL SECTOR ................................................................................... 11 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 17 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ........................................................................................................................... 17
DEFINITIONS Social Sector
The voluntary or ‘community’ sector is purposeful social activity undertaken by organisations that are not-for-profit and non-governmental. Also known as the third sector.
Businesses or economies e.g. co-operatives, non-profit transactional (could be cash free) organisations, and charities. Social purpose is the primary objective of a social enterprise. SEUK identifies the following criteria for a social enterprise: • • • • • •
Have a clear social and/or environmental mission set out in governing documents Generate most of their income through trade Reinvest most of their profits Be autonomous of state Be majority controlled in the interests of the social mission Be accountable and transparent A social economy (social enterprise) develops because of a need for new solutions for issues (social, economic or environmental) and to satisfy needs which have been ignored (or inadequately fulfilled) by the private or public sectors (innovation). By finding means to achieve not-forprofit aims, a social economy has a unique role in creating a strong, sustainable, prosperous and inclusive society. Successful social-economy organisations play a role in fulfilling governmental policy objectives by:
• • • • • Creative and Cultural Industries
Increasing productivity and competitiveness Contributing to socially-inclusive wealth creation Enabling individuals and communities to renew local neighbourhoods Demonstrating new ways to deliver public services Developing an inclusive society and active citizenship The UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) defines the creative industries as "those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property"1. This includes advertising, architecture, craft, design, film, TV, radio, photography, IT, publishing, museums, galleries, libraries, music, performing and visual arts. Some bodies, such as UNESCO, use a similar term – “cultural industries” which includes broader fields such as cultural tourism,
1 “Creative Industries Mapping Document.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creativeindustries-mapping-documents-2001 [PDF], p4. 9 April 2001.
heritage, sports and outdoor activities, often concerned with delivering other kinds of social and cultural value rather than primarily financial value. Cultural Leaders
Individuals who create and/or run organisations and initiatives that engage people in the creative and cultural sector. Sue Hoyle, Director of the Clore Leadership Programme offers this definition: “Cultural leaders, in my definition, could include artistic directors of dance companies and theatre, heads of culture for local government, grants managers for philanthropic foundations, directors of museums, curators of art galleries, board members of arts organisations, digital entrepreneurs, artists and designers – people in the centre of organizations as well as at the top, people who are outside organisations as well as those within. The key thing is that they should be change-makers.”2
“The Values of Cultural Leadership.” https://issuu.com/cloreleadership/docs/tokyo2014bctalk [PDF], p1. 2014.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES “The notion of the creative industries needs to be released from its limited definition … [it] has already extended to the much bigger field of social innovation which impacts on almost every area of daily life, from mobility to food networks, from health to elderly care, from education to social cohesion.” -Ezio Manzini, Chair Professor of Design for Social Innovation at UAL
BLURRED LINES Cultural organisations – many of which are incorporated as educational charities – already deliver social impact. However, the core difference between the two sectors is that social enterprise is primarily focused on the delivery of social and environmental outcomes, and cultural organisations on artistic and cultural outcomes. While we tend to categorise social, cultural and creative enterprise as separate fields, the truth is much more complex. Increasingly boundaries are being blurred and people are working across or well beyond silos. The connecting points that exist between social, creative and cultural work include:
Business models – cultural organisations are, when appropriate, adopting business models designed originally for the social sector, with some operating primarily as a social enterprise. Finance – cultural organisations are increasingly looking to social impact investment (where their activity can expect a return) or public and private funds that primarily address social and environmental outcomes (rather than purely artistic and aesthetic ones) as funding for cultural activity from government becomes increasingly uncertain and squeezed. The social enterprise model of trading to generate profit that is reinvested into the social or cultural aims of the organisation is also increasingly gaining traction. This is a trend also set out in the recent Warwick Commission on the Value of Arts and Culture: “The Commission believes that we are likely to see a shift in the coming years from increasing direct public funding to the Cultural and Creative Industries towards brokering and facilitating mixed investments from private sources and the social economy.”3 Innovation – both the social and cultural sectors are looking to design and digital for new approaches, systems and tools for improving their reach and connection to audiences and client groups, business efficiency and data analysis, creativity and innovation, and communications and advocacy. Socially engaged – both sectors are ultimately in the business of engaging with people and providing services to enrich quality of life (though cultural leaders often find it counterintuitive to think of their work as a “service”). Increasingly socially-engaged art is being recognised and legitimised (Assemble winning the Turner Prize for their Granby Streets
“Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth.” http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/research/warwickcommission/futureculture/finalreport/warwick_commission_fin al_report.pdf [PDF], p25. 2015.
project, for example), which sees social outcomes as part of the artistic output and acknowledges a co-creative relationship with participants and community members. Conscious of context – as political, social, economic and environmental challenges become more visible and urgent, both sectors are seeking an impact for the better – whether it be in providing services or in reflecting lived experience through creative content. Themes both sectors share include: health and wellbeing, aging and loneliness, active citizenship, community-building, environmental sustainability, self-expression and confidence, intercultural understanding and tolerance, for example.
In addition to these trends, young people are more conscious that previous generations about purpose-led enterprise, in both the cultural and social fields, which has an implication for how the cultural sector retains talent and demonstrates value to the next generation of cultural leaders.
COMMON LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES Both the creative, cultural and the social sectors face similar operational and contextual challenges, all of which require creative thinking, agility and collaboration to resolve. The opportunities for cross-disciplinary learning, as well as optimised creativity through collaboration that diversifies expertise and perspective, are manifold. Dame Mary Marsh, founding director of the Clore Social Leadership Programme, identified eight critical areas where the social sector can try to in a government review into skills and leadership in the social sector4: • • • • • • • •
Strengthen governance – particularly diversity Attract and develop leaders – capacity, mentoring, peer support Routes into and through the social sector – clear career pathways Skills sharing – across social, public and private sectors Digital fluency – including disrupting ways of working to explore innovation Data-informed social change – evidence to inform Enterprise capability – new sources of revenue, funding, investment Collaboration in the social sector.
These are also relevant for the creative and cultural sector, suggesting that the learning opportunities that could come from joint training and professional development, and peer to peer knowledge exchange would be considerable.
For more information visit: www.leadingsocial.org.uk
WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP A recent research project – Beautiful Change5 – by Jeanette Bain-Burnett, funded by the AHRC, focuses on the benefits, opportunities and challenges of when social and cultural leaders learn together. In the executive summary, Bain-Burnett identified examples of learning in social and cultural partnerships6: 1. There are organic connections between the arts and social change, both in inspiring social change and in inspiring new artworks 2. Common values and a shared ethos, which is sometimes clouded by different language and ways of expressing how we work and what the outcomes are 3. Specific relationships between people are key and can’t be underestimated Her recommendations for social and cultural leaders are: • • • • •
Push past the barriers in language and working practices to think about how expertise can be combined to better meet people’s needs. Be proactive in creating and making the most of networks that go beyond your immediate sector and sphere of influence. Take time-out of practice to reflect together on the distinct learning opportunities that emerge in cultural/social partnerships. Advocate for each other to colleagues, policymakers, funders and specialist networks. Translate what you understand about each other’s practices for peers within your field. Seek out senior leaders beyond your immediate sphere of practice to talk strategic partnership not just contracts, commissions and funding.
LEARNING FROM SOCIAL ENTERPRISE While the social and creative sectors are already fluidly interconnected, there are both opportunities and barriers to collaboration and peer to peer learning.
OPPORTUNITIES Drawn from a variety of literature and interviews on what cultural leaders could learn from social enterprise, we identified the following opportunities. Some are generalisations that will not apply to every social enterprise, and should be considered a broad summary of insights. Many of these are also traits shared by cultural organisations and leaders, but could be scaled.
Beautiful Change is a report and series of worksheets and videos that are freely available online here: www.beautifulchangeproject.wordpress.com 6 https://beautifulchangeproject.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/beautiful-change_research-summary.pdf
Impact measurement – as the cultural sector transitions to funding that seeks social and environmental outcomes for cultural and creative work, the imperative to capture impact effectively becomes more important. This is something the social sector is well-practiced in and could contribute to the effectiveness and focus of creative and cultural endeavours. Social enterprises have a good understanding of return on investment, not just in financial terms but social terms too. Good systems – social enterprises operate with good business acumen and up to date systems, not only in evaluation and impact measuring but across business operations and communications too. Business models – the social sector have a diverse range of legal entities that are used, depending on what best serves the social outcomes they seek to address. Cultural organisations on the other hand, tend to be limited companies or charities, and could benefit from more awareness of the variety that is potentially available to them. Pitching – social entrepreneurs are used to adapting the way they talk about their work to engage a wide range of investors and clients. They understand how to adapt their “pitch” to different audiences, to raise capital and gain influence in service of their social impact. Audience access and engagement – by engaging with and being sensitive to people’s experience and needs, as the social sector does, cultural organisations can engage new and more diverse audiences with their work. Innovation in the social sector is human-centred – it’s focused on understanding the needs and desires of their clients, and the challenges and opportunities to help and engage them, and designing solutions from there. Systems thinking – social entrepreneurs aim to design systemic solutions, not just fix isolated problems. Greg Van Kirk, an Ashoka fellow and founder of Community Enterprise Solutions suggests, “people don’t just need HIV medication, but they need refrigeration and nutrition. Social entrepreneurs think with this holistic framing in mind.” They join different aspects of the value chain together to deliver change and long-term value in multiple areas, by work beyond siloed challenges, expertise and practice. This can offer new perspectives to cultural leaders who face their own systemic challenges, whether it be public funding or engaging new, diverse audiences. Behavioural insights – social enterprises spend time understanding behaviour, what motivates people and how to most effective affect change. they design their interactions with people around this expert insight to make sure every interaction is as impactful as possible. They combine this knowledge with intention to create new norms. While the creative sector has influence to create new norms (especially if we extend our understanding of the sector to include advertising) these new norms are seldom designed around real social or environmental impact, at worst creating a dependency rather than an enabling relationship with the people they engage. Diversity and bias – there is a more established culture in the social sector of acknowledging and confronting bias towards different groups of people, which has (generally) led to a more diverse workforce and client base. Purpose – social entrepreneurs are primarily looking to solve big problems, like poverty, climate change, health, education etc. This encourages them to set ambitious goals and ups motivation, knowing their work is contributing to a bigger cause. Cultural leaders could find more purpose and drive in their work and ambition by seeing their work in the context of systemic challenges. Finance is the means, not the goal – social entrepreneurs focus on the problem they’re trying to solve first, and then seek out and use financial mechanisms and markets to solve it, not the other way around. In other words, the social impact drives the business model. [AUTHOR NAME]
Living their values – social enterprises tend to embody the values that they apply to solving the problems they care about. That means not only caring about the welfare of people and the environment in their external work, but also in their internal culture and how they operate as a business. This isn’t just a nicety, it improves talent and staff retention, and long terms sustainability for the business. They seek to “be the change”, making is a practice to challenge themselves to be better every day. Win-win – self-interest tends to be low, and empathy high, meaning social entrepreneurs see the world from multiple perspectives. This leads to a decision-making process that seeks to find solutions that don’t benefit the individual (person or company) but the world (or community) as a whole. There is a caveat here which is that social sector can also be a very competitive space, and win-win is not always an easy choice. Entrepreneurial spirit – social entrepreneurs have a mindset focused on problem solving and business creativity. They also tend to hire people with similarly entrepreneurial traits and seek to share leadership because it helps scale and achieve impact. Partnership and collaboration – often cultural and social leaders are working with similar (or the same) people as clients, participants and audiences, and ultimately care about making a difference to similar social and environmental impacts. Collaboration and partnership could enable more sophisticated and impactful practice, and bring more expertise to both sectors to innovate, recognise mutual expertise and value, to scale change faster.
BARRIERS Short-termism – both the subsidised and commercial cultural sectors are focused on short term financial gain. In the case of subsidy, this is driven both by the way that funding infrastructure favours project-based work and novelty, rather than funding longer-term initiatives or core business operations. The profit imperative of commercial enterprise encourages a short-term growth mindset. As such, social benefits end up being a by-product rather than intentionally and wellplanned and evaluated impact. Instrumentalisation – there’s a weariness in the arts and culture of supporting art and creativity for its instrumental rather than intrinsic value. This is often pitched as an either-or conundrum, rather than acknowledging best practice work that demonstrates both artistic excellence and social impact can be achieved without compromise. Knowing our value – the cultural sector generally lacks confidence and the ability to effectively articulate the value, practice, expertise and transferable skills that they could offer to the social sector. As such, other sectors and in general the development sector poorly understand or clearly articulate the importance of culture to wider social and environmental impact movements. Knowing what we need – the cultural sector doesn’t know enough about what the social sector has to offer, and how it could meet their particular needs and challenges. Common knowledge – there are few common sources for information and knowledge sharing that are used by both the social and creative sectors. While there’s an increase in hub spaces that could foster more collaboration, they also tend to be focused on creative OR social businesses rather than targeting both purposefully to work and connect within the same environment.
Inward-looking – both sectors tend to work with like peer groups, engaged in similar work. Each sector has its own particular set of behaviours, knowledge sharing platforms, networks and jargon that can create challenges for understanding and communication. The arts and cultural community are held back by a lack of will and vocabulary to make their work, skills and value known and understood beyond their own sector. Time – creating connections, common language and working practices across silos takes time and energy, which is made harder by the lack of organisations facilitating these connections. Money – the relationship of artists and cultural organisations towards money can be preventative to thinking beyond traditional funding and income generation sources. Ideas about “selling out” and a resistance to commercialisation, or any risk of serving someone else’s financial agenda or perception of arts practice and keep cultural leaders from realising new opportunities and markets for their work. Scalability – while the notion of scalability is relatively straightforward in terms of social impact, it is less so when thinking about the scalability of artistic, cultural and creative impact. What is it that we’re seeking to scale? And why? These are questions that deserve more attention and consensus. While the focus here has been on what the cultural sector can learn from social enterprise, it is important to reiterate that there is much to be gained from mutual learning.
Welcome to the creative crisis. Welcome to a nation unable to solve its problems, incapable of civil discourse, bogged down in a morass of multicultural conflict, and lagging the global innovation marketplace. Just look forward a generation or two, and this will be America if we do not address the dearth of investment in art and imaginative capacity. As social entrepreneurs, we have not stepped up as champions because we are not seeing the impacts that arts can have on every issue we care about. For too long we have allowed arts and culture to be treated as a nicety—the first budget cut and the last investment made. In the last 30 years, we have seen our nation’s investment in the arts decline as advocates for the arts have scrambled to communicate relevancy through the frames of educational achievement, creative economy investment, and economic development—these are all true but undersell the power of art. … Our economy is moving from being manufacturing-based to being innovation-based. Are we fostering the imaginative capacity to compete? We are faced with cataclysmic food, fuel and water issues if we do not address our reliance on a carbon economy. But are we sparking the creative thinking to find new technologies and new ways to work with nature? We have a dramatically changing population that is shifting the demographics of voters, students, workers, and leaders. Do we have the multicultural humility and the cultural context to leverage this change as an asset? For the last century, financial and institutional capital have been the priority leverage points for addressing society’s challenges. I deeply believe that, in the future, human, social, and creative capital will have the greatest impact. And this is where arts and culture are a necessity. - Eric Friedenwald-Fishman “No art? No social change. No innovation economy.” (2011)
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN THE CULTURAL SECTOR We identified several business models for social enterprise during this research: 1. The rental of property space to creative and cultural businesses to generate profit that can be reinvested into the support and development of those same businesses. 2. The rental of property space to creative and cultural businesses to generate profit that can be invested in external people, projects and initiatives to support social and environmental outcomes. 3. The rental of property space to retail businesses to generate profit that can support the artistic and cultural activity of the organisation, and social impacts related to access to culture, community development and others. 4. Cultural services and products previously delivered by local authorities breaks away to becomes an independent social enterprise, which then sells those services back to the local authority. 5. Cultural services and products designed to have a direct social or environmental impact at the point of delivery, where any profit is reinvested into the delivery of those services and products. 6. Cultural products and events that generate profit which is donated to charitable causes. 7. Cultural products that are sold to generate profit for the makers, where those makers are underprivileged people (a model used often in developing contexts). 8. The sale of non-cultural products and services to generate profit that can be reinvest in cultural activity. 9. Advocacy and capacity building organisations that seek to support the creative cultural sector to be better recognised for their social and environmental impact, access social finance and overcome barriers to communication and collaboration between the social and cultural sectors. This is not an exhaustive list, and could be expanded with further research. See overleaf for select case studies from the cultural sector.
CASE STUDY: DKUK DKUK is a hairdressing salon and London’s smallest gallery space based in Peckham, London. It’s run by Daniel Kelly, a hairdresser and curator, previously an associate at Open School East who has exhibited at Saatchi Gallery, Whitechapel Gallery, Somerset House, Ancient and Modern, Frenc Rivera. DKUK operates as a two-strand subsidy model: income from hairdressing subsidises the arts programme, and Arts Council England funding supports a project manager who helps with the exhibitions. Daniel asks all hairdressing customers how often they attend galleries and museums. 52% don’t go to galleries, and through DKUK they are engaging with visual art for the first time. His customers have spent over 1200 hours having haircuts and experiencing art work, and offers artists complete control over the visitors’ experience.
CASE STUDY: COCKPIT ARTS Cockpit Arts is a social enterprise and the UK’s only business incubator for makers and craftspeople, housing up to 170 businesses in two locations in London. Cockpit Arts aims to not only influence the behaviour of makers and craftspeople but also that of the wider creative industries by strengthening the workforce through incubation, support, and coaching. The organisation introduced its highly successful incubation model in 2005, and turnover and profits of the businesses at Cockpit Arts have increased year on year. In 2016 the businesses reported an average turnover of £58,099 and average profits of £14,004, compared to the national average of £23,485 and £6,231 reported by the Crafts Council in 2012. The services and studio spaces, offered at an affordable rate, generate profit that is reinvested into the organisation in three ways: for early stage businesses to receive support, for young people referred by the Prince’s Trust to have access to a Creative Careers programme, and an apprenticeship programme. Cockpit Arts does not receive any public funding meaning they have the independence to be flexible, adaptable and experiment freely.
CASE STUDY: MAKEBELIEVE ARTS MakeBelieve Arts is a theatre and education charity and social enterprise, offering innovative, high quality programmes to develop the holistic, creative, emotional and cognitive potential of children and young people from Early Years settings and Primary Schools across the UK. They have also expanded their reach to Spain, Qatar, USA, New Zealand and Vietnam.
They have two strands of work: Helicopter Stories for Foundation Stage - Key Stage 1 and First Theatre which they tour to primary schools yearly, and deliver training and keynotes in both Creative Mathematics, Creative Literacy and Helicopter Stories. As a Social Enterprise MakeBelieve generates income from a variety of sources. They charge for services but strive to make our work affordable to all by charging modest fees to schools and/or individuals, supporting the true cost of their work through fundraising and sponsorship. Any profits made are re-invested back into the business. From 2007 - 10, Artistic Director Trisha Lee was a Cabinet Office appointed Social Enterprise Ambassador, to promote the growth of social enterprises nationally and is particularly interested in how the Arts can flourish as social enterprises.
CASE STUDY: THE NOMAD CINEMA The Nomad Cinema is a roving pop-up with a reputation as ‘London’s best outdoor cinema’ (Evening Standard). It also runs events in iconic cultural venues, and has a sister cinema, The Lexi in Kensal Rise. Both cinemas are run by volunteers and work through partnerships, and 100% of profits go to The Sustainability Institute in Stellenbosch, South Africa. Nomad is a member of SEUK, the National Trade Body for Social Enterprise. They generate income from ticket, food, drink and merchandise sales.
CASE STUDY: LIBRARIES UNLIMITED Libraries Unlimited believes in the unlimited potential of library services across the UK to make a positive difference to people’s lives and communities through the shared love of reading and access to a wide array of information and facilities. They run Devon County Council’s public library service – 50 libraries and 4 mobile libraries. Adopting a new social enterprise structure will allow them to innovate to support their social goals. They host a Business and Intellectual Property Centre in Exeter Library, providing support to business owners, entrepreneurs and inventors in partnership with the British Library. Fab Lab Devon is also based in Exeter Library, offering a small-scale workshop and digital fabrication facilities as a not-for-profit resource to the community. They hire meeting rooms across the county to generate income, and runs libraries at three prisons on behalf of the National Offender Management Service. They run a wide programme of events and have Arts Council England funding to research the impact of libraries on local communities they serve. As part of the programme, staff will take part in Action Learning Sets to support managers to identify problems and solutions during the research.
CASE STUDY: LIVE THEATRE Live Theatre is a new writing theatre based in Newcastle. It operates as a limited company and registered charity, with a subsidiary trading company and a Special Purpose Vehicle to manage their Live Works development, a £10 million capital project. Live Theatre has four social enterprises that develop income: The Broad Clare gastropub invests 10% of its turnover each year into one play project; The Schoolhouse is a small business incubator and workspace; Beaplaywright.com is an online training platform for writers which support one Live Theatre education programme per year; and Live Works is a commercial office space, public park and young people’s writing centre. The aim is for all four to be generating £500,000 of unrestricted funds per annum to Live Theatre’s mission by 2018.
CASE STUDY: SHARP FUTURES SharpFutures is a social enterprise that supports young people into employment in the creative digital sector, by offering a range of services and pathways including Apprenticeships, Work Experience and Volunteering. Clients include ITV, BBC and Tiger Aspect as well as tech, digital and animation companies. SharpFutures nurture the transition into work, whilst responding to the fluctuating needs of creative digital business. It seeds ideas through services for education, nurtures the best talent it finds through employment opportunities, and real work experience, and it grows through the sale of our business products and services. Based in Manchester, they specialise in talent development for socially diverse new entrants through its innovative POD service and provides a range of cultural and education services through DISCOVER.
SharpFutures is the social enterprise partner for The Sharp Project and Space Studios. The Sharp Project was built on the site of the old Sharp electronic distribution factory, which was shut down in the early 2000's. This created significant local unemployment and social deprivation. The new site is home to over sixty digital entrepreneurs, creative and tech companies, and Space Studios is a purpose-built facility for large scale TV & film production, producing a combined GVA of £41m.
CASE STUDY: THEATRE WITHOUT BORDERS (CHINA) Established in 2008 by dentist Wang Xiang, Theatre Without Borders was recognised as China’s first privately-owned theatre. It has 80 seats and has presented 200 productions in 1,500 showings since it opened, with a mission to make art accessible to all. When the landlord decided to sell the property to commercial developers for 40 million Yen, Xiang launched a campaign and crowd funding to raise the funds to keep the theatre open. As a participant in the British Council’s 2009-2016 Social Enterprise Programme in China, Xiang managed to leverage [AUTHOR 15 this network (among other sources) toNAME] meet his fundraising target and purchase the property with a mortgage.
CASE STUDY: BASHKATIB (EGYPT) Bashkatibâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission is to establish a network of self-sustaining community media outlets in marginalised communities across Egypt, run by youth between 12 to 18 years of age. They provide expert training to young people in journalism writing, photography, video, cartoon, publication design, marketing and management, and work with them to launch a monthly publication during a two-year commitment. While they are driven by a social outcome to enable marginalised communities to have a voice, their medium for it is creative. The work is funded through content commissions from national and international media platforms, and grant funding.
CASE STUDY: UPSTART CO-LAB (USA) Based in New York, Upstart Co-Lab is a national collaboration connecting artists with social entrepreneurs, impact investors, social enterprises, and sustainable companies. Upstart has three main goals: 1. To increase opportunities for artists as innovators by building recognition for current artist-innovators, by placing artists in new roles with non-profits and social enterprises, and by engaging artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ideation skills to solve a range of problems. 2. To unleash new sources of capital for creativity by connecting impact investors with opportunities to fund the creative sector. 3. To enable sustainable creative lives in the USA by training artists with crucial skills, creating new markets for their work, and linking eligible artists to existing social services and subsidies. They do this by applying existing models from impact investing, social entrepreneurship and social innovation to the creative sector, by developing systems and structures that align the arts with established social innovation practices and prepare them to attract investors, and by advocating for this cause at major social investment platforms. [AUTHOR NAME]
CONCLUSION While this research is top line it shows clear evidence for the value of bringing social and cultural leaders together to exchange knowledge, collaborate and develop new ways of sharing information and new practice. It is clear also that far from being a case of skills exchange and efficiency, there are tangible assets, experience and expertise that each sector has that can be beneficial to the other, even in creating opportunities for new practices and approaches to emerge. This report has focused mainly on what cultural leaders can learn from social enterprises, but should be developed to encompass what each can learn from the other more completely, with a focus on mutuality. In todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s world, shaped by wicked challenges, complexity and uncertainty, the power of coming together in exchange and collaboration has never been more urgent or impactful.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS As part of the 2016/17 Clore Fellowship, this report was researched and compiled collaboratively by: Ahmed Elhawary, Director, Bashkatib Charlotte Nicol, Learning and Engagement Practitioner Ren Li, Executive Producer, FreeIdea Theatre Company Sholeh Johnston, Creative Consultant Sue Smith, Director, Dance in Devon Suzie Norton, Director, Zanna Creative Ltd. Symeon Ververidis, Development Officer, London Metropolitan Archives The final write-up was completed by Sholeh with support from the group.