Is the Australian Social Benefit Supplier ecosystem constrained and are framework targets at risk?

Following many meetings and discussions with clients and suppliers over the last six months I posed the following question to myself, Is the Australian Social Benefit Supplier ecosystem constrained and is achievement of social procurement framework targets at risk as a result??

Whilst I’m supportive of, and have been deeply involved in, the social procurement and social enterprise ecosystem I have recently reflected on what’s working well and what needs improving.?

The Australia social benefit supplier ecosystem and social procurement frameworks are constrained because the current system and providers are not able to efficiently identify, engage with and certify or verify enough suppliers who can provide the necessary social benefits. This can slow down the process of achieving the social procurement framework targets because there are simply not enough ‘Certified’ suppliers to provide the required goods and services.

The definition of what qualifies as a ‘Social Benefit Supplier’ also requires further review and possible broadening (including B Corps for example) and we need to expand the opportunity for multiple intermediary organisations to undertake the certification process (to a defined standard) to have more social benefit suppliers certified rather than relying on the current limited number of certifiers that are struggling to achieve scale.?

Furthermore, there may be a lack of resources or support to help social benefit suppliers meet the requirements of the social procurement frameworks, which can also contribute to the bottleneck. This means that the suppliers who are available may not have the necessary resources to provide the required social benefits, further slowing down the process.

Overall, addressing the constraints and improving the process and performance in the National social benefit supplier ecosystem and social procurement frameworks is a critical factor in achieving the desired social outcomes from procurement activities.

Social enterprise databases available on the?market?do not comprise one third of the current?social benefit suppliers mapped. They divide the vendors by?beneficiaries and certification, excluding most?vendors. Also, the superficiality of the information?available?makes it harder to find social benefit suppliers that best suits the needs of the?buyers.?

So I wanted to pose some questions as to how might we address these supply chain constraints??

Q1.? Should ‘Certified B Corps’ be recognised as being equivalent to ‘Certified by Social Traders’ without the need to go through the Social Traders certification process?

Q2. Can a ‘Certified B Corp’ be deemed to be a ‘Social Benefit Supplier’ under the various Government Social Procurement Frameworks and can the current definition be expanded / revised to include ‘Certified B Corp’ as being recognised?

Q3. Can we have multiple ‘Intermediaries’ undertake to ‘certify’ an organisation as being a Social Benefit Supplier using the same certification criteria and guidance to increase the volume of certified organisations? Currently there are 460 certified Social Enterprises in Australia with 1,300 Certifications completed over 5 years (*Pace22), so where’s the other 12,000 organisations and why are they not certified yet? Why have organisations who have been certified now not certified??

Q4. With a current bottleneck and low volume of ‘Certified’ social benefit suppliers is Government open to alternative solutions and approaches to increase the absolute volume and quality of social benefit suppliers?

Q5. How do we work together to create pathways for social benefit suppliers to move from being established to being verified and then certified in an efficient timeframe. How can we assist suppliers to secure more sales, achieve scale and deliver greater impact??

I would be interested to hear any positive solutions or ideas from my fellow professionals in this sector. Feel free to comment below and let’s have a conversation. I also welcome anyone to reach out to me directly with any comments or thoughts you may want to share privately.?

I encourage any Government representatives to also reach out and explore how we can do the above far better.?

Author

Geoff Gourley is a leading Global Social Innovator, Entrepreneur, Impact Investor and Director of ESG at Apricot Consulting, in 2017 acknowledged in the Top 100 Social Entrepreneurs & Innovators around the world. He has 30 years’ experience in design, property, construction, and all things Environmental, Social, Governance and Impact.

+61 428 317 387

[email protected]

Apricot?Consulting

Since it’s conception two decades ago, the Apricot team have delivered outcomes and strategies that quantify and improve the health of leaders, teams, organisations, and communities. While our firm has changed significantly since its first project in 2002, our work has always endeavoured to meet the lofty goal of genuinely making the world a better place.

Our primary service lines sit within the area of Organisational Development, and ESG. We see these two divisions increasingly intertwined, and reflective of a shift towards a more ESG-minded economy.

Our strength is our ability to connect leaders around a shared vision of success, and importantly, walk with our clients to implement and deliver influential programs driven from the top down and holistically informed by their unique business ecosystem, both internal and external.

We deliver this through the synergy of our expert consultants and in-house and external tech, including our own home-grown algorithms, the unique Apricot Health Index ? digital assessment, the integration of complex artificial intelligence, as well as a suite of partnerships with world leading institutions and organisations to ensure our client's commercial peace-of-mind and the knowledge that their work will leave a legacy.

?

We are Apricot

?

Apricot ESG?

?

Apricot Leadership & Change