Published
Oct 27, 2018, 5:00 am SGT
When I read that social enterprises were running hawker centres, I wondered if someone had confused them with quangos, or Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations.
According to Britain's national body for social enterprises, a social enterprise makes its money from selling goods and services, covers its own costs in the long-term, puts at least half of any profits back into making a difference and pays reasonable salaries to its staff.
Quangos, on the other hand, are organisations that are funded by taxpayers but not controlled directly by the central government, as defined by the BBC.
There is, thus, no accountability to the taxpayers, because quangos are not controlled by a government body. If things go wrong, it is not the fault of the government.
Thus, I was mystified when I read of hawker centres being run by social enterprises.
Which model of financial governance are they following?
Are at least half the profits ploughed back to the hawkers and associated staff, or directed to other social causes? Or are the profits solely to feed the well-heeled and well-placed owners?
Unlike charities, social enterprises are not required to run annual general meetings, where their finances can be publicly scrutinised.
I have stopped supporting charities whose chief executives are paid salaries several times that of the British Prime Minister. But at least their salaries are published and I can make that choice.
Social enterprises, on their other hand, as privately run companies, are not required to disclose these details.
Will the real social enterprises please stand up?
===
The original here:
What
are social enterprises?
According to www.socialenterprise.org.uk
, a social enterprise makes its money from selling goods and services, covers
its own costs in the long-term, puts at least half of any profits back into
making a difference, and pays reasonable salaries to its staff
What it does NOT do is: exist to make profits for
shareholders, make its owners very wealthy, and rely on volunteering, grants or
donations to stay afloat in the long-term.
When I read of ‘social enterprises’ running hawker
centres I wonder if someone (or a group) has confused social enterprises with
‘quangos’.
In the UK quangos stand for Quasi-Autonomous
Non-Governmental Organisations. According to this website (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840\
) they are organisations that are funded by taxpayers, but not controlled
directly by central government although the government might appoint (sympathetic)
senior directors.
There is thus no accountability to the taxpayers, because
quangos are not controlled by a government body. If things go wrong, it is
never the fault of the government.
On the other hand, the people who run quangos often see
taxpayers as a money tree, and there are no mechanisms to stop quango heads
from awarding themselves ever higher salaries, or awarding tenders to
whomsoever they please.
So I am a bit confused when I read of hawker centres
being run as or by ‘social enterprises’? Which model of financial governance
are they following?
Are at least half the profits ploughed back to the
hawkers and associated staff, or directed to other ‘social benefits’? Or are
the profits solely to feed the well-heeled and well-placed owners?
Unlike charities social enterprises are not required to
run AGMs where their finances can be publicly scrutinised.
I have stopped supporting charities where their CEOs are paid
salaries several times that of the British PM. But at least their salaries are
published and I can make that choice.
Social enterprises on their other hand, as privately-run
companies, are not required to disclose these details.
Will the real social enterprises please stand up?