To give a clearer picture of value creation by case study councils and case study social enterprises, a comparison has been made by looking at the purpose of local government and social enterprises within community. In the context of value creation, results demonstrate that case study councils deliver value through governance and stewardship within judicially defined municipal areas. This
governance and stewardship is identified by Grant et al. (2014) as creating public value in the broad sense of something created for the common good of citizens and community. Results present opinions of two case study council respondents that councils are the level of government that can generate the biggest social impact for community, however, this requires innovation and understanding of what needs to be done. By comparison, results demonstrate that case study social enterprises focus on social change and social value creation through the pursuit of revenue generation in the market place so as to achieve social goals (Di Domenico et al., 2010). These examples reflect the proposition by Alford and O’Flynn (2008) that public sector organisations must aim at creating something that constitutes public value, be legitimate and attract support from the authorising environment [government and community], and be operationally and administratively feasible. Public value emphasises what is important to citizens of a local community. However, case study social enterprises also demonstrate that their activities generate community value by building a sense of community which is identified in geographical and relational settings (Obst, 2004). Obst explains that community value is the psychological connection to community through the fulfilment of needs in a relational community. Therefore, public value and community value connects both local government and social enterprises to community and place.
Results demonstrate that both case study councils and case study social enterprises connect with community and place, to shape place and create a sense of place, but with different approaches and from different perspectives. Chapter two highlights that place-shaping and a sense of place fit with the civic responsibilities of local government to develop and maintain the planned environment of community, in particular to create attractive, prosperous and safe communities. Pike et al. (2006) identifies that while this civic leadership approach to place-shaping is top-down, it creates public value by addressing both infrastructure and community needs at the same time. On the other hand, results reflect that case study social enterprises shape people to shape place, but with a collaborative bottom-up approach of active citizenship, which creates community value by building social capital and community capacity (McMillan and George, 1986, Cuthill, 2003, Obst, 2004).
Case study social enterprises also demonstrate that they create both social value through community engagement and community development activities and economic value through earned income to support social mission, thereby creating public benefit. Chapter two canvasses that these social enterprise activities also build community capacity, and provide real solutions to
local socio-economic problems, thereby creating public value (Defourny and Nyssens, 2008b, Barraket and Archer, 2009, Eversole and Eastley, 2011, Social Traders, 2014, Eversole, 2014). Social Enterprise Network (2006: 251 emphasise the importance of value creation and states:
… outcomes, not just intention and activities matter; and … value is created every time needs are met.
While the role of local government is one of civic leadership, service provision and corporate governance, it is evident that case study council activities do not generate economic value, nor do case study councils rely on the social capacity of citizens to build social capital. Conversely, despite the evidence of successful socio-economic outcomes created by case study social enterprises, this is not acknowledged by case study councils as of public value.
However, some case study council respondents suggest that the future of local government lays in developing better understanding and connections with local communities. Results highlight connections with local communities through community development activities by both case study councils and case study social enterprises. However, Vogt and Binns (2005) argue that community development cannot be imposed on communities, rather it should be created collectively by community members from within the community. For example, the collaboration with local community by one case study council to develop a 25-year Community Plan demonstrates a clear intent to build long-term sustainability and community capacity. Accordingly, results also demonstrate that case study social enterprises build social capital and community capacity through social innovation and entrepreneurship activities to facilitate social change. Despite case study social enterprise community development activities, results highlight that these activities do not demonstrate plans for continuity, short-term or long-term.
Literature emphasises that social innovation and social entrepreneurship are prominent mechanisms for social change within local community, creating value where opportunity arises for enterprise activities to satisfy unmet social deficits (Kury, 2012, and Shockley and Frank, 2011). And it is evident from the results that case study social enterprise activities have significantly benefited local communities, which as Campbell (2011) suggests demonstrate connection between citizen-initiated enterprise activity and meeting local socio-economic needs. However, it is also evident that case study councils do not acknowledge the value of case study social enterprise social innovation or entrepreneurship activities. This is despite some case study council respondents suggesting that community is a resource for solving local issues. However, it
is equally evident that most case study council respondents do not identify the social innovation or entrepreneurship activities by case study social enterprises as integral to place-shaping or community development from their perspective.
Aars and Christensen (2013) present another perspective of public value, in particular the notion of the value of local citizens becoming involved in associational life as volunteers. The author considers that while associational life is contextual, results demonstrate that case study social enterprises encourage participation and socialisation within enterprises, which builds internal organisational capacity to achieve organisational outcomes. What is more, Chapter two canvas that social enterprises create blended value by generating economic value alongside social value (Defourny and Nyssens, 2008b, McNeill, 2009, Social Ventures Australia, 2012). It is evident from the results that possible inter-organisational blending of value, particularly between local government and social enterprises has the potential to create a synergy that creates reciprocal socio-economic benefits for both organisations, but more importantly for the whole community.
What is more, Noya and Clarence (2008) point out that the self-organising activities of social enterprises are embedded in local communities fostering local social inclusion. Results highlight that this approach has enabled and empowered community members to draw on existing knowledge, share skills and knowledge, and foster community resilience, through their own commitment and actions. Results demonstrate that all eight case study social enterprises have developed a social inclusion model that characterises participation, knowledge sharing and ownership by stakeholders (Young, 2001). As an example, one case social enterprise has engaged over fifty volunteers, each with a common passion for “giving back to the community more than just dollars”.
Eversole and Eastley (2011: 3) identify that 57% of Tasmanian social enterprises rely on volunteers with an average of 23 volunteer workers per social enterprise, and what is more, they are the primary stakeholders in building social capacity and social capital. McKinlay et al. (2011) identify that case study social enterprise volunteers also participate in the process of community governance and decision-making, which gives participants ownership of social enterprise processes and development outcomes. Chapter two also refers to volunteer participation as a resource of expertise and labour, and as a resource that creates knowledge partnering as a mechanism for community development (Eversole, 2015).
Results present case study councils and case study social enterprises as agents of place for people and community, shaping place and creating a sense of place, each playing key roles within community that ideally support local community development. The discussion in this subsection emphasises that community is the nexus and common factor between case study councils and case study social enterprises. In support of this, Chapter two presents the notion that community is not just a place aligned with spatial/geographical properties of landscape, but it is the values and sense of place (place dependence) individuals and groups (including communities) attribute to a location, that all build public value for local community (Wardner, 2012, Kyle and Chick, 2007, Wazeem, 2008, Verity, 2007, Winter and Freksa, 2012, McMillan and George, 1986).
Results strongly emphasise the value, public and social, created by both case study councils and case study social enterprises. This suggests potential for collaborations or relationships between these two entities that increase value for community, and the next subsection focuses on opportunity and potential of these collaborations or relationships.