Savvify

Children are great teachers, if you listen to them. When I am tired and stressed, I am a useless parent. If my younger daughter, Bethany, marches into the living room and accuses her older sister of hitting her, I will call Natasha into the room, shout at her and send her to her room. Later, I will go to see her, explain that I was tired and stressed, and listen to what she has to say. If she’s not too angry with me, she’ll tell me and we’ll reach understanding. If not, I just have to live with doing her another injustice.

But when I am not tired and stressed, we deal with Bethany’s accusations in a completely different way. I call Natasha into the room and ask her to tell Bethany why she hit her. It usually goes something like this:

Natasha: “You bit me!”

Bethany: (Looking sheepish at first, but then defiantly). But that was because you called me stupid!

Daddy: Is that true, Natasha?

Natasha: Yes - but she is stupid.

Daddy: I told you to never call her stupid. Why is she stupid this time?

Natasha: Because she is.

Daddy: (Exasperated) Bethany, why does Natasha think you are stupid?

Bethany: I’m not stupid - she’s just calling me that because she thinks I laughed at her drawing.

Natasha: (Talking to Bethany). That’s right - you laughed at my drawing! You made me feel stupid.

Bethany: I didn’t laugh at your drawing. I laughed at your face!

Natasha: And, then you called me stupid.

Daddy: Bethany, did you call her stupid?

Bethany: (Silence)

Daddy: Bethany?

Natasha: See! She’s always telling lies about me.

Bethany: I do not - you’re always bullying me.

Natasha: That’s because you are stupid.

Daddy: (Hands in air) Natasha! Stop that.

Natasha: See - you’re always taking her side!

Daddy: That’s not true.

Natasha: But you do. You always do.

Bethany: No he doesn’t!

Daddy: Is that what this is about? You think I am taking her side?

Natasha: (Silence)

Bethany: He doesn’t Tash. He sends me to my room sometimes too.

Natasha: (Moody silence).

Daddy: I’ve got one thing to say to you both.

Both: (Silence)

Daddy: (After a pause, and in a thick Yorkshire accent). I don’t like gravy….

Both: (Laughing)

Daddy: Come here….

(Hugs both children).

The reason little people (kids) are great teachers is that they are pretty useless at hiding their emotions (unless they have already suffered emotional trauma). They show how they feel and this makes it easier in a dispute to read what is going on. Adults, on the other hand, are practiced at “dramaturgical performances” - a phrase coined by Erving Goffman (1969) to describe the acting abilities of big people. A more recent phrase that is easier to understand is “deep acting”. Adults have had years more experience practising how to conceal their emotions (and had more time to grow afraid of expressing them). Their performances are much more convincing than a child’s but are not perfect enough to fool all people all of the time.

Another reason kids are great teachers is that they stay emotionally engaged with the person they are arguing with (at least in my house they do) and do not go off in a huff and refuse to speak to the other person. Adults, I find, withdraw quickly or go silent if someone questions their integrity or values. That makes it much harder to have a conversation like the one above and to trace what triggered feelings of hurt or rejection. Another way to look at this, however, is to consider the level of intimacy. We have intimate relationships with other family members, and this makes it easier to argue. With people we know less well, it is not possible to argue in the same way (at least, not until an intimate relationship has developed) so the style of disagreeing has to be more diplomatic and subtle.

We are often told that not behaving like children is a mark of maturity and “being civilised” but I want to suggest to you that the reverse is closer to the truth. Think back to the opening quote in Chapter 1 of Emotion, Sedcution and Intimacy (Ridley-Duff, 2007): “the meetings would get so violent that people almost went across the table at each other…People yelled…they waved their arms around and pounded on tables…faces would get red and veins bulged out.”

This was a description of the behaviour of top executives and technicians in one of the most ’successful’ companies of their generation resolving differences over business plans. There is, therefore, a view that “excellent” companies allowed for, and took advantage of, the most evolved part of our capabilities, namely “the emotional … side (good and bad) of human nature”. Good and bad! Or perhaps, calm and excited, quiet and loud, passive and assertive, reflective and activated.

What these executives have in common with my children is two things:

• They are not frightened of their own emotions
• They are not frightened of other people’s emotions

Both are signs of emotional maturity.

Natasha, our first child, was the first of her generation. For two years she was the centre of attention from parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and family friends. Then others in our family had children. Four years later we had our second child, Bethany. The day her younger sister came home from hospital, Natasha told us at the end of the day: “you can take her back now!” We sat down to explain that Bethany would be staying with us, and that the nurses at the hospital were only there to help with the birth.

Gradually, Natasha got less and less attention as the younger ones got more and more. While growing up helped, there are still times when she feels vulnerable because she does not get all the attention she used to have. Sometimes, instead of complaining to dad (Rory) or mum (Caroline) she takes her frustrations out on her younger sister. In her more secure moments, she admits this is because it is easier than getting angry with a grown up.

But Bethany, I found, is already a smart cookie herself. It was only when we were old enough to track back events that I realised just how selective Bethany is in truth telling. She does not lie so much as only tell part of the story. To her credit she is an honest soul - if challenged she admits the other side of a story. In our quieter moments, she tells me that the reason she does this is to compensate for being the youngest and smallest. In her words, “I can’t ever win”. Make a note of this - she is economical with the truth because others are all stronger and she can never win a physical fight. She can, however, sometimes win the verbal fights. If she catches us when we are tired or stressed, she can sometimes control her older/bigger sister.

The technique we use to resolve arguments owes a debt to Staying OK by Amy and Tom Harris, sequel to the bestseller I’m OK - You’re OK (Harris, 1970; Harris & Harris, 1986). It is a technique called ‘trackdown’ where you go back over the events that have fuelled an argument until you spot how it started. That way, you can deal with the root cause - emotional hurt caused by perceived exclusion - rather than superficial behaviour that constitutes a reaction to feeling hurt.

Adults, however, often refuse to engage in trackdown because they want to hide the emotions and thoughts that drive their behaviour. Sometimes, they may not even be aware of them (which is the value of using trackdown as a diagnostic tool). With Natasha and Bethany - as with most people, whether young or old - the root cause is almost always that one thinks another is getting favourable treatment. This triggers one to attack the other directly (hitting, shouting, verbally abusing) or indirectly (telling tales). In the workplace, physical violence normally results in an immediate sacking, verbally abusing could lead to being disciplined, this leaves tale telling as the principle way for work colleagues to discipline and control each other.

Now here is why children are as emotionally mature as the executives in the opening quotation. They find ways to express, then process, strong emotions while remaining emotionally close to the people with whom they are in dispute. During a decade or so of school, however, children are socialised to repress strong emotions and work in silence to make it easier for teachers to control them. The workplace has no need of such tight controls because workers are not in a one-way learning environment with a 30:1 ratio between teacher and learner. This makes school-like disciplines particularly ineffective. A much better approach is to bend and flex so that expressions of emotion are not only permitted, but point the way toward mutual understanding and the pleasures of making up after an argument. As Aronson (2003) reports, the most enjoyable and satisfying relationships, as reported by adult couples, also have higher levels of conflict.

If using this article, please mention the source as:Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007), Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy, Bracknell: Men’s Hour Books, pp. 84-88.

Other References

Aronson, E (2003) The Social Animal, New York: Worth Publishers.

Goffman, E. (1969) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Harris, T., Harris, A. (1986) Staying OK, London: PAN.

Harris, T. (1970) I’m OK - You’re OK, London: PAN.

For a person attempting to understand a conflict, the question that could start every investigation is “how is the accuser hurting?” or “why does the accuser feel a need to make an accusation?” It may be wise not to widen the scope of a dispute until the circumstances of the accusation are understood. To accuse, there must either be a moral principle at stake, an interest that has to be defended, or an anger than seeks an outlet. Initially before shifting focus to the accused, establish the balance between these three.

If possible, search back through events (Harris and Harris, 1986) with the accuser to trace any source of emotional hurt (remembering that it may come from somewhere else in the accuser’s life and is not necessarily the outcome of their relationship with the accused). If you cannot shed any light, start to involve the accused. Initially, you are still trying to understand the reason for the accusation from the point of view of the accuser, not the accused. If you bring the parties together, let the parties be emotional as it provides information. Avoid taking sides: the objective is not blame. The objective is to stimulate dialogue so that you, and they, can understand the source of emotional hurt and shed light on the hidden dynamics of the conflict.

If you find yourself displaying emotions, consider how the outcome of the dispute affects your own interests. Does your emotionality betray a desire for a closer relationship with one party? Is one party particularly important to achieving your own personal (or organisational) goals and objectives? Talk to someone outside the dispute about your own emotions to shed some light on them. No-one is completely impartial and you may still be the best person to mediate.

If it is a gender dispute, remember that most men want close relationships with women more than with other men, and women want close relationships with men more than other women (except for lesbian and gay women and men). “The other” is often perceived as the source of emotional hurt but this does not necessarily mean it is true. Hurt is a reflection of our own desire, our own sense of loss. We hurt most when we cannot fulfil our desires (and the bigger the gap between our desires and reality, the greater our hurt). Find out, if possible, what event changed the relationship. What did each party say to the other? Could it be an outcome of changes outside work?

If somebody is deeply distressed, establish if it comes from a sense of loss, remembering always there is a 60% chance in the case of a woman, and possibly also in the case of men, that they will not divulge their sexual feelings (McDowell, 1985; India Today, 2003). Talk carefully. On a one-to-one basis, ask them to describe the relationship from the beginning. This will give you a sense of how the relationship evolved and changed.

Support people through loss. If no loss is found, find out why people feel violated. Does the person need protection? If not, then mediate as soon as possible. If yes, then seek professional advice.

Both women and men hurt - it is not women’s or men’s problem alone and is best resolved together. Men fear showing their feelings, not always because they are ashamed, but because experience has taught them that expressing feelings will lose them the respect of the woman (or women) they currently want to love them, or their male friends and colleagues. Women and men teach men this by calling them “losers”, “wimps” or “sissy” whenever they show feelings that reveal their vulnerability. Men and women, on the other hand, teach women to be submissive’ by rushing to comfort them when they become distressed. The more beautiful the woman, the quicker people will seek to help. Bear in mind that these responses are fairly automatic internalised during childhood/adolescence (in much the same way as Pavlov and his dogs). They are continually reinforced during courtship and through films, TV programmes, magazines, books and stories (Farrell, 1986).

They can also be unlearnt (see Berne, 1963; Holland, 1999). Gendered responses are not a good indicator of who is being truthful and who is truly hurting. Women may cry to avoid having to talk. Men may cry, but are more likely due to cultural conditioning to become angry as a way to get (or deflect) attention. Both crying and anger may be genuine or affected responses. They may be honest or a “performance” to win hearts and minds.

When we know that women are no more likely to be physically harmed in personal relationships than men (Fiebert, 2005), our attitude to both men and women changes. When we know that men’s feelings are hurt as much as women’s (Pease and Pease, 2004), but they do not show this, our attitude changes again. When we understand that women are more creative and convincing liars (because they cannot resort so readily to physical force to win their fights), and that men are less good at hiding their lies (because they are punished more readily and frequently for lying during childhood) our attitude changes even more (O’Connell, 1998; Pease and Pease, 2003). We start to understand that men need as much protection from tale telling as women need from physical violence or rape (Farrell, 2000).

Women who understand men are no more inherently violent than themselves will no longer feel a need for special protection. Although they will continue to fear violence from men more than from women, they will begin to understand this is the response of any person who desires to be with them, but cannot be so. Men who start to understand that women are as violent as themselves will no longer feel such a need to give them special protection. If they do, they will come to understand this as a product of their desire to be a hero to the women who watch them, and part of their own need to win approval from them.

The Case for Mediation

Mediation offers a solution that is consistent with the values and goals of both democracy and gender equality. It affords protection to all parties regardless of status, ethnicity or gender. Critics of mediation (or “restorative justice” as it is called in criminology) worry that mediation simply gives the perpetrator another opportunity to intimidate the victim. At the start of a dispute, however, it is not clear who is perpetrator and who is victim. The apparent victim may be the perpetrator - it is the mediation process that helps to determine this (Roche, 2003).

Mediation is hard work: it may involve participants coming to terms with deeply held prejudices, or face up to the full impact of their behaviour on others. But it also gives them a chance to explain their intent and for others to learn why they responded in a particular way. The process may not be quick or easy. The alternative, however, is a workplace culture and society generally that pays lip service to fairness and equality but takes refuge in defensive approaches to conflict.

To support change, build the process of mediation into employment and trading contracts so that investors and entrepreneurs, employers and employees, customers and suppliers, face penalties under the law for authoritarian approaches to conflict resolution. These laws are the ones we can create for ourselves, for our own organisations. They are not imposed by government statute. Consequently, no acts of parliament need to be passed for these laws to come into effect: they can be brought about by changes in management understanding and practice.

This way, existing laws will stop favouring the party who unilaterally withdraws and start favouring those committed to reconciliation. The laws will start to reward compassion and tolerance. Individual businesses taking initiatives to switch to mediation as a tool of social control will be entrenching democratic values without ever having to involve a politician! What greater incentive do you need?

If reprinting this article, please include the following citation:

Based on Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007) Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative Perspectives on Organisation Behaviour, Bracknell: Men’s Hour Books, pp. 228-232.

References

Berne, E. (1964) Games People Play, Penguin.

Farrell, W. (1986) Why Men Are The Way They Are, London, Bantam Books, Chapters 2 - 6.

Farrell, W. (2000) Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, New York, Tarcher/Putnam.

Fiebert, M. (2007) References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography, California State University. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Harris, T., Harris, A. (1986) Staying OK, London: PAN.

Holland, R. (1999), “Reflexivity”, Human Relations, 52(4): 463-484.

India Today (2003) Sex and the Indian Woman, September Cover Story.

McDowell, P. (1985) “False Allegations”, Forensic Science Digest, 11(4): 64.

O’Connell, S. (1998) An Investigation into How We Learn to Love and Lie, Doubleday.

Pease, A., Pease, B. (2003) Why Men Lie and Women Cry, Orion.

Pease, A., Pease, B. (2004), The Definitive Book of Body Language, Orion.

Roche, D. (2003) “Gluttons for restorative justice”, Economy and Society, 32(4): 630-644.

In recent years, a new term - social enterprise - has started to develop throughout the world (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001). This article attempts to answer some key questions for four specific interest groups:

1. Those in the private sector wondering if social enterprises are a threat or an opportunity for them (and how they might alter their own practice to remain competitive).
2. Those in the voluntary / community sector trying to work out their medium/long-term future (whether they should engage or resist the notion of social enterprise).
3. Those in the public sector being asked to develop, support or commission work from social enterprises.
4. Those who self-define as social enterprise, wondering how to understand themselves and describe the value of their approach to others.

The problems surrounding the definition of social enterprise can be explored by reviewing the contexts in which the term is now being used. A country’s economy can been conceptualised as having three sectors (Billis, 1993; Pearce, 2003): a public sector (state institutions and publicly owned and funded organisations); a private sector (businesses established by individuals for purposes other than the development of the state, principally to earn money and make a living); a voluntary sector (organisations established by people on a voluntary basis to pursue a social or community goal).

The problem with the above definition is that it tends to exclude organisations that transgress the boundaries of these definitions. For example, co-operative enterprises (owned by employees, producers or consumers) cross the boundary between the private and voluntary sectors (Oakeshott, 1990). They often have a social or community goal, but are usually set up to distribute financial benefits equitably to all parties involved in an enterprise rather than prioritise the needs and financial goals of the founders (Ridley-Duff, 2002). While the term co-operative has varying degrees of salience, many household names provide good examples of this organisation form: The London Symphony Orchestra, PA News (the world’s largest news agency), John Lewis (with nearly 70,000 partners) and the Mondragon Co-operative Corporation (with over 60,000 members in nearly 200 organisations across 45 countries) are all enduring examples.

The continued growth and development of co-operative forms of enterprise, and ‘mutual help’ as a commercial principle led to the emergence of the a new term in the early 1990s - The Third Sector. This terms covers more than voluntary bodies and charities and includes mutual organisations (e.g. building societies) and producer, marketing and consumer co-operatives (see OFT, 2008). One social value that pervades the entire Third Sector is a concern that contemporary private and public sector management principles have contributed to the social exclusion of disadvantaged groups and vulnerable individuals. For some in the sector, the goal is to address (and find alternatives to) powerful political and financial interests that disempower many citizens (Morrison, 1991; EAO, 2008). Many Third Sector organisations, therefore, share an orientation that specifically attempts to reduce social exclusion. They may do this in a variety of ways: by providing services more cheaply to disadvantaged groups; using collective bargaining power to negotiate access to scarce or expensive resources; organising themselves in a way that enfranchises and empowers individual members (and gives them a political voice); traditional approaches by attempting to redistribute surplus wealth to disadvantaged groups through charitable practices and organisations.

The identification and growth of the Third Sector has been accelerated by changes in the public sector. Since the early 1980s, there has been a shift away from welfare through state institutions and a greater use of agencies and contractors. New Public Management is a concept that has underpinned a new commercialisation agenda (attempts by government to make greater use of markets and private sector thinking in public service delivery to ’save’ money). Accompanying this is a belief that business practices and managerial solutions will improve the ‘performance’ of the public sector and create a more efficient and fair society (Paton, 2006; Chandler, 2008). It is this thinking that is now driving changes in the UK National Health Service (NHS): the UK, as in other parts of the world, is switching to a ‘contracting culture’ in which grants (or statutory funding) are replaced by contracts for service delivery. So, in recent years, the boundaries between the private sector (in term of market thinking and managerial practices) have impacted the public and voluntary sectors and started to blur traditional distinctions between them (Bull, 2006, 2007). Secondly, the emergence of radical business alternatives with a strong social orientation, democratic organisation, and positive attitude to ‘profitable’ trading has led to formal recognition and academic scrutiny (Seanor, Bull and Ridley-Duff, 2007).

In the late 1990s, I played a minor role in discussions to establish a new business support agency. Around the table were support and trading organisations from the co-operative sector (Computercraft Ltd, Poptel, ICOM London) and representatives from public sector training and enterprise councils (TECs) that supported skill development in the voluntary and community sectors. All of us were looking for an idea (and name) that captured the goals for a new support agency. We decided on the name Social Enterprise London and established a new organisation. Members of Computercraft and Poptel (a phone co-operative) provided political support and organisational know-how. The TEC and ICOM provided assets and funding streams that enabled Social Enterprise London to establish itself (SEL, 2008). Whether this is the first organisation to use and promote the term social enterprise throughout the UK is unclear, but the role of Social Enterprise London in helping to bring the concept (and language) to public consciousness is not in doubt. It helped to establish the first Social Enterprise degree courses at the University of East London (UEL, 2008) as well as the first Social Enterprise Journal that is now owned and published by Emerald Publishing (JMU, 2008).

With their help (as well as many others) the term social enterprise has started to spread throughout our culture. By 2008, it had been appropriated by four distinct groups to describe their approach to organisation:

• A - Charities and voluntary groups that are embracing a ‘contracting culture’ by tendering for public sector contracts.
• B - Charities and voluntary groups that establish trading operations to generate income for their social missions.
• C - Co-operatives or stakeholder businesses that tackle social exclusion by adopting democratic governance and human resource practices.
• D - Businesses that deliberately re-invest or share their surpluses in a ‘public interest’ or ‘fair trade’ enterprise.

Three of these contexts (A, B and C) are typically linked to developments in the Third Sector (community businesses, social firms, voluntary groups, charities, co-operatives, credit unions and mutual societies). The last of these are increasingly linked to the agenda of ‘New Public Management’ that seeks to reverse the post-WW2 policy regarding the state’s role in the delivery of education, health and social services.

As a result, the term ‘social enterprise’ has become highly contested. Advocates from each of these groups may, or may not, recognise the other parties as legitimate social enterprises. This is experienced most sharply when organisations trading for a social purpose are rejected by social enterprise support agencies on the grounds that they do not organise themselves in a sufficiently transparent way, or are trading with commercial organisations for ‘private’ gain. As a way through these conceptual difficulties, it is helpful to examine how theories of social enterprise are grouped into two competing perspectives. Firstly, there are those that conceive social enterprises as trading organisations sitting in the middle of a continuum between the pursuit of a social mission (charitable) and trading in a market (private). The issue here, for those supporting their development, is whether they are sufficiently social in their organisation and trading purposes.

Another perspective, however, breaks out of this linear mode of thinking and views social enterprise as a trading organisation capable of rebuilding and developing social capital where this has been destroyed / depleted by contemporary political / economic business thinking (Laville and Nyssens, 2001). As such it emerges in the boundaries between the public, private and voluntary sectors to address the shortcomings of each (Nyssens, 2006; Ridley-Duff, 2008). In its ideal form (a multi-stakeholder co-operative or business) it has a social mission, an inclusive system of governance that erodes the distinction between ‘governors’ and ‘governed’ (or ‘directors’ and ‘employees’). At the same time, there is a renewed emphasis on sufficient trading strength to impact positively on the lives of all parties to the enterprise. In this guise, social enterprise moves beyond another form of charity in which wealthy philanthropists use their wealth and business logic to solve social problems (Nicholls, 2006) and becomes an alternative way of understanding wealth creation that echews the thinking that creates socially excluded individuals and groups in the first place (Ridley-Duff, 2008). This broader based understanding is embraced by the Social Enterprise Coalition (SEC, 2008).

In short, social enterprise can be applied to any of the following:

1. Enterprises that bridge the boundaries between the private and voluntary sectors (e.g. trading charities and mutual societies).
2. Enterprises that bridge the boundaries between the private and government sectors (e.g. housing associations and public/private partnerships in the Health Sector).
3. Enterprises that bridge the boundaries between government and voluntary sectors (e.g. enterprise / employment support services provided under contract).
4. Enterprises that internalise a social orientation, democratic governance and entrepreneurial trading (e.g. co-operatives / employee-owned / co-owned businesses).

Acknowledgement

^{This article has been written by one of the authors for a forthcoming book by Sage Publications. Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and Practice will be marketed by Sage Publications from early 2010 onwards. This article draws on material submitted for the book proposal and approved by the Sage editorial board in March 2008. The authors of the book will be Rory Ridley-Duff, Mike Bull and Pam Seanor.}

References

Billis, D. (1993)Organizing Public and Voluntary Agencies, London: Routledge.

Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds), (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London: Routledge. Bull, M. (2006), Balance: Unlocking Performance in Social Enterprise, Manchester: Centre for Enterprise, Manchester Metropolitan University.

Bull, M. (2007), “Balance: The Development of a Social Enterprise Business Performance Analysis Tool”, Social Enterprise Journal, 3:49-66.

Chandler, J. (2008) Explaining Local Government: Local Government in Britain Since 1800, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

JMU (2008) “Social Enterprise Journal”, http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/socialenterprise/67985.htm

EAO (2008) “The voice of co-owned business”, http://www.employeeownership.co.uk/

Laville, J. L. and Nyssens, M. (2001), “Towards a theoretical socio-economic approach”, in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, Routledge, London, pp. 312-332.

Morrison, R. (1991) We Build the Road as We Travel, New Society Publishers.

Nicholls, A. (2006)Social Entrepreneurship: New Paradigms of Sustainable Social Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nyssens, M. (2006)Social Enterprise at the Crossroads of Market, Public and Civil Society, London: Routledge.

Oakeshott, R. (1990) The Case for Worker Co-ops (2^nd Edition), Macmillan.

OFT (2008), “About us”, London: Office of the Third Sector, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/third_sector/about_us.aspx

Paton, R. (2003) Managing and Measuring Social Enterprise, London: Sage Publications.

Pearce, J. (2003)Social Enterprise in Anytown, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2002) Silent Revolution: Creating and Managing Social Enterprises, Barnsley: First Contact Software Ltd.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2008) ‘Social Enterprise as a Socially Rational Business’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour, 14(5), forthcoming.

Seanor, P., Bull, M. & Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007) “Contradiction in Social Enterprise”, paper to the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference, Glasgow, 7th-9th 2007.

SEC (2008) “What is social enterprise?” http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/page.aspx?SP=1345

SEL (2008) “About Social Enterprise London”, http://www.sel.org.uk/about.html

UEL (2008) BA (Hons) Social Enterprise, http://www.uel.ac.uk/programmes/ssmcs/undergraduate/summary/socialenterprise-ba.htm