Knowledge Centre Blogs

Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant concept. It is already being used by many social enterprises in the UK to save time, improve services, and stay resilient. But how prepared is the sector for AI? And what kind of help is needed to ensure that adoption supports, rather than threatens, mission-led work?  Over the past few months, we surveyed 92 UK social enterprises. Some were already using AI, others were beginning to explore the possibilities, and a few were not planning to adopt it at all. Our goal was to understand these different positions and help shape better support across the sector.  A snapshot of AI adoption  60% of respondents said they already use AI. The tools in use include content generation software, automation systems, and chatbots. The main goals behind adoption were to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs. Another 16% were preparing to adopt AI soon, while 24% said they had no current plans to use it.  Most AI adopters were micro or small enterprises, often working in education, healthcare, or business support. These organisations used AI for day-to-day operations that required speed, consistency, and scale.  The organisations preparing to adopt AI expressed strong interest in improving customer service and automating administrative tasks. However, they also raised concerns about unclear return on investment, ethical considerations, and a lack of implementation guidance. These barriers were not about values. They were about capacity and clarity.  Non-adopters reported few challenges directly related to AI. But this may reflect limited exposure rather than lower risk. Some said they were watching how others manage adoption before making their own decisions.  What challenges are emerging?  As organisations gain more experience with AI, they become more aware of practical and ethical barriers.  Among current users, 83% raised concerns about data privacy. Nearly 75% reported challenges integrating AI into existing systems. A large number also identified skills gaps within their teams. These are not hypothetical problems. They affect how effectively organisations can use new technology over time.  Future adopters, by contrast, were more likely to question whether the effort and cost of AI would deliver meaningful value. Their interest is real, but their concerns are about making the right choice, and not rushing into something unproven.  Non-adopters reported the fewest concerns. However, this should not be taken as a sign of readiness or resilience. It may simply reflect a lack of exposure to the realities of AI use. Many are still deciding whether this is something they need to prioritise.  Support must match need  Our findings revealed a strong link between where organisations are on their AI journey and what kind of support they require.  Nearly 80% of current users asked for more training. They are looking for help with strategy, technical skills, and data handling. Those planning to adopt AI wanted early-stage guidance, including case studies, onboarding materials, and ethical frameworks.  Non-adopters were least likely to request support. But this may be due to uncertainty rather than opposition.  The conclusion is clear. One-size-fits-all support will not work. A staged, modular approach is needed. Organisations at different stages need different forms of help.  What we plan to do next  We are using these pilot findings to inform a national research programme. The next stage will include case studies and interviews with social enterprises across the UK. We want to explore how organisations think about AI, how values shape their choices, and what helps build confidence.  We will then co-create resources with sector partners. These may include onboarding guides, training tools, or decision-making frameworks. We will test them through online experiments to find out what is effective, useful, and scalable.  This is not about promoting AI. It is about ensuring that if social enterprises want to use it, they have access to trustworthy and well-designed support.  Get involved  If you are working in a social enterprise and thinking about AI, whether you are already using it or just starting to consider it, we would love to hear from you.   We are currently looking for interviewees, workshop participants, and collaborators. Your insights will help shape a practical and inclusive approach to AI for the entire sector.  Please get in touch if you would like to be involved: gordon.liu@open.ac.uk This piece was co-authored by Alessio Antonini (Open University), Ali Ataullah (Open University), Francesca Calò (Open University), Joyce Ko (Brunel University), Gordon Liu (Open University), Micaela Mazzei (Glasgow Caledonian University), Fidele Mutwarasibo (Open University), Artur Steiner (Glasgow Caledonian University), and Simon Teasdale (Queen's University Belfast) This article is part of SEUK’s Social Enterprise Knowledge Centre University Network – to find out more please contact research@socialenterprise.org.uk

Academic research shows how power dynamics between social investors and social enterprises can shift in the face of major economic and social shocks, such as COVID. Dr Julia Morley from the London School of Economics explains the key findings of her recent paper Talking Across Purposes. Social investing has become a transformative force, directing private capital towards social enterprises to achieve financial returns and social good. In the UK alone, the sector saw investments totalling £830 million in 2021, highlighting its significant growth and impact. However, the diverse backgrounds of stakeholders, including investors, social enterprises, and policymakers, often lead to communication challenges, particularly regarding the terminology used within the sector. Language and misunderstandings: The ambiguous nature of key terms is at the core of many misunderstandings in social investing. For instance, the definition of "social impact" can vary widely among stakeholders. For some, it might mean quantifiable outcomes like employment rates, while for others, it refers to more nebulous benefits, such as improvements in well-being. While initially beneficial in allowing varied parties to find common ground, this ambiguity can also lead to significant challenges as projects develop. Can ambiguity be useful? Ambiguity does have its advantages. It enables a broad range of stakeholders to engage with the idea of social impact without being bogged down by rigid definitions. This can foster collaboration across different sectors and viewpoints, facilitating initial agreements and partnerships that might not otherwise be possible. The downside: Over time, however, the benefits of this ambiguity diminish. Different interpretations of the same terms can lead to misunderstandings and misalignments between investors and social enterprises. These miscommunications can create friction and inefficiencies, hindering the sector's overall effectiveness. Push for precision: In response to these challenges, there has been a move towards standardisation and clarity in the language used in social investing. Investors, often holding greater power in these discussions, have led the push for defining terms and setting standards. This has included the creation of glossaries and training programs aimed at aligning the sector's language with investor expectations. Shifting power dynamics: The COVID-19 pandemic shifted power dynamics within the social investment sector. The crisis underscored the importance of knowledge of the operational realities of delivering services to beneficiaries and shifted the balance of authority over knowledge to social enterprises. During this period of instability and change, their local knowledge of beneficiaries’ needs and frontline operational issues gave their views more weight relative to the traditional financial expertise that investors had previously leveraged. This shift in the balance of power was short-lived, however. As the status quo returned, so did the perceived relevance and value of investors’ financial expertise in social investing. Conclusion: The experiences during the pandemic have provided valuable insights into the importance of language in social investing and how significant disruptions can shift the authority of knowledge, alter power dynamics, and shape how the meanings of terms – and hence practices within the sector - evolve. As the sector continues to grow, both investors and social enterprises must remain aware of these dynamics to foster an inclusive and effective social investing environment. Key takeaways: While initially helpful, the ambiguity in social investing terminology can lead to challenges as misunderstandings become apparent. Standardisation efforts are crucial but do not reflect all stakeholders’ interests equally. Significant destabilising events, like the pandemic, can reshape power structures, offering lessons on how to manage and negotiate terms in social investing more equitably. The full paper which this piece summarises can be found here.  This article is part of SEUK’s Social Enterprise Knowledge Centre University Network – to find out more please contact research@socialenterprise.org.uk

On the fifth anniversary of the first lockdown, academic research shows that social enterprises not only survived during the pandemic - they thrived. Professor Richard Hazenberg and Dr Claire Paterson-Young from the University of Northampton explain.  At the five-year anniversary of Boris Johnson’s lockdown announcement in March 2020, there remain many questions as to the impact of the pandemic on the country’s economy and society.  One area that we still know relatively little about is the impact that the pandemic had on social enterprises and their ability to serve their communities.   Social Enterprise UK research in 2021 found that social enterprises proved resilient, retaining staff and having lower closure rates than other forms of business. But our team at the University of Northampton’s Institute for Social Innovation and Impact (ISII) has now found that social enterprises performed even better than previously thought.  With our new research, we found that not only were social enterprises resilient, but they also grew their turnover and increased staff numbers. Despite the challenges of operating during a pandemic, they also increased the number of people they were helping.   We looked at the financial performance and social impact of 1,507 social enterprises both before and during the height of the pandemic, covering the years 2019-2022.  It used data from the Social Enterprise Support Fund (SESF), delivered by Big Issue Invest and partner organisations, through funding secured from the National Lottery Community Fund.   Misson makes for resilience   Our analysis revealed that in the three years between 2019 and 2022, social enterprises in the sample increased their turnover by 28% and their profits by 89%. As social enterprises, those profits were largely reinvested into their social missions, supporting the groups and communities hit hardest by the pandemic. Not only did the financial statements make for good reading, but staffing levels and the number of beneficiaries supported both rose by 11%.   Moreover, these figures did not come at the expense of trading income. Whilst there was an increase in grant funding, overall proportions of trading income barely changed (-0.7%), illustrating that increases in turnover was balanced between both income streams (grant funding accounted for just over one-third of turnover increases).   How did the sector achieve this during a time of such immense challenge? It should perhaps not come as a surprise, as previous studies during earlier crises (such as the 2008 financial crash), have shown that the nonprofit sector tends to be resilient.   As part of our research, we held interviews with 17 social entrepreneurs and 16 stakeholders from the wider social enterprise ecosystem. These revealed that, for social enterprises, their inherent hybrid focus on both financial and social missions aided their reactions to the pandemic.   Indeed, it was their social focus, commitment to their communities, and ethical approach, which alongside their ability to problem solve and reshape their offers, allowed them to continue to deliver support. Community support offered by social enterprises was significant in reducing isolation, including the delivery of support to enable people to access technology, expansion of counselling for children, and online educational provisions.  It was therefore the multi-mission focus that lies at the heart of social enterprise approaches that supported this resilience.  Lessons to learn from   What does this mean for the social enterprise sector and those seeking to support it? Our sample is not illustrative of the social enterprise sector as it did not contain many micro social enterprises. The data also only runs through to 2022, so doesn’t determine how the organisations developed through the remainder of the pandemic and beyond.   However, the data does show that focusing on both financial sustainability and benefiting communities can prove an asset for organisations, at least when reacting to crises. Supporting more businesses to improve the integration of social mission at strategic levels and critically assess their community operations can support not only their resilience and sustainability but deliver wider economic and social benefit.    Perhaps most importantly, the data shows that social enterprise proved resilient and focused on delivering for their communities, despite the many challenges faced. As the UK faces ongoing challenges in public services delivery, spending cuts, and social tensions, support to allow social enterprises to expand further is vital, not least as a protection measure against the next big crisis.  The full, open access paper with the complete findings of the research, can be found here.  This article is part of SEUK’s Social Enterprise Knowledge Centre University Network – to find out more please contact research@socialenterprise.org.uk