DOCSLIB.ORG

Community Interest Companies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BRIEFING PAPER Number 03426, 30 April 2014 Community Interest By Timothy Edmonds Companies Inside: 1. Social Enterprise 2. CICs 3. CICs in action. 4. The CIC Regulator www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 03426, 30 April 2014 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Social Enterprise 4 2. CICs 5 2.1 Introduction & legal establishment 5 The Act 5 Consultation and Regulations. 8 3. CICs in action. 9 4. The CIC Regulator 10 Cover page image copyright: Rosendale Leisure Trust by Robert wade. Licensed by CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 3 Community Interest Companies Summary This note outlines the function and main characteristics of Community Interest Companies (CICs). CICs are part of the growing social enterprise sector which covers a very broad range of activity across many sectors of life. Although they are not charities many CICs have strong ethical backgrounds or serve social needs and all are subject to controls on the distribution of profits and capital. It is a strongly growing sector with 12,500 approved CICs as at March 2014. Number 03426, 30 April 2014 4 1. Social Enterprise The social enterprise sector is already well established in the UK. It is represented by the Social Enterprise Coalition (SEC) which has a considerable amount of material about the sector on its website at: http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk. SEC defines social enterprises as: Social enterprises are businesses that trade in the market with a social purpose. They use business tools and techniques to achieve social aims and include an incredibly wide range of organisations, for example co-operatives, development trusts, community enterprises, housing associations, social firms, and leisure trusts. 1 The examples given of well-known social enterprises include Welsh Water, Café Direct, The Big Issue, the Co-Operative Group and Loch Fyne Oysters. A report by the London Business School found that, in the UK:2 • 3.5% of the working age population are ‘actively involved in SEA start up effort and 2.8% manage a start-up. • SEA activity was highest in London and lowest in the East Midlands. SEA activity rates are higher in rural areas than urban areas. • The SEA rate is highest amongst the youngest age group (18-24) at 3.9% of the population • Women are far better represented in SEA than in traditional entrepreneurial activity. • 10.9% of Black Africans are social entrepreneurs’ three times higher than for the white population. • SEA has become more economically significant in recent years. The average SEA start up employs more people and has a higher turnover than the average mainstream start up. Furthermore, the clear trend is for work in this sector to be paid rather than voluntary. The social enterprise sector includes various business forms as mentioned above, the available types were added to by legislation which established CICS. 1 See website 2 London Business School, Social Entrepreneurship Monitor UK 2006 5 Community Interest Companies 2. CICs 2.1 Introduction & legal establishment The Act Community Interest Companies (CICs) were established by the Companies (Audit Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004. The primary legislation has been given effect by two subsequent Regulations: The Community Interest Company (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/1942) The Community Interest Company Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1788) The explanatory notes to the Bill set out what the original legislation hoped to achieve: Part 2 of the Bill establishes a new type of company, the community interest company, for use by social enterprises wishing to operate as companies. This Part of the Bill also establishes the Regulator of Community Interest Companies ("the Regulator"), whose role will be to maintain public confidence in the CIC model. The CIC is intended to be used by non-profit-distributing enterprises providing benefit to a community. Such businesses are presently active in areas such as childcare, social housing, leisure and community transport. Many of them already incorporate as companies, either as a company limited by guarantee ("CLG") or a company limited by shares ("CLS"). The special characteristics of the CIC are intended to make it a particularly suitable vehicle for some types of social enterprise - essentially, those that wish to work for community benefit within the relative freedom of the non-charitable company form, but with a clear assurance of non-profit-distribution status. Companies that are formed as, or become, CICs will continue to be subject to the general framework of company law. In particular, CICs and directors of CICs will have to comply with their obligations and duties under the Companies Acts and the common law, as modified by this Bill. The CIC will be a new variant of existing forms of company. It can take the form of a CLG or CLS, and existing companies limited by guarantee with a share capital will also be able to become a CIC. CICs will be registered as companies with the registrar of companies in the usual way, and will be subject to the usual regulatory constraints and powers associated with company status, including the oversight of the Department of Trade and Industry's Companies Investigation Branch. The distinguishing features of the CIC will be: in order to become a CIC, a company will have to satisfy a community interest test, confirming that it will pursue purposes beneficial to the community and will not serve an unduly restricted group of beneficiaries. The test is whether a reasonable person could consider the CIC's activities to benefit the community - it is therefore wider and simpler than the charitable test of public benefit; companies of a particular description may be excluded from CIC status by regulations; it is anticipated that political parties, companies controlled by political parties, and political campaigning organisations will be excluded in this way; CICs will not be able to have charitable status, even if their objects are entirely charitable. However, charities (and all other organisations except political parties) will be able to establish CICs as subsidiaries; each CIC will be required to produce an annual community interest company report containing key information relevant to CIC status. The report will be placed on the public register of companies; CICs will have an asset lock - that is, they will ordinarily be prohibited from distributing any profits they make to their members; Number 03426, 30 April 2014 6 however, it is intended that regulations will allow CICs that are limited by shares to issue dividend-paying "investor shares". The dividend payable on such shares will be subject to a cap; when a CIC is wound up, its residual assets will not be distributed to its members. Instead, they will pass to another suitable organisation that has restrictions on the distribution of its profits, for example another CIC or a charity; the Regulator will approve applications for CIC status, receive copies of the community interest company reports and police the requirements of CIC status, including compliance with the asset lock. He will have close links with the registrar of companies. The key role of the Regulator will be to maintain public confidence in the CIC model. He will aim to impose the minimum necessary regulatory burden on CICs, but will have powers to investigate abuses of CIC status and to take action where necessary, for instance to remove directors, freeze assets or apply to the courts for a CIC to be wound up. He will also set the cap on CIC dividends.3 More detail about the Bill and the debate on it can be found in Library Research Paper 04/62. During the Bill’s Second Reading, the Minister, Jacqui Smith, summarised the new company form: The community interest company will be a new and additional choice for social enterprises. It is not meant to replace other options such as charities, or the industrial and provident society, which is the form used by many co-operatives. Indeed, the Government are committed to modernising all legal options used by voluntary and community organisations and helping people to choose their most appropriate option. The special value of the community interest company is that it will offer the flexibility of the company form, yet be more suitable for many social enterprises than existing types of companies. Responses to consultations show that there is about 80 per cent. support for the idea of the community interest company, and it is supported by bodies including the Social Enterprise Coalition, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Charitable Foundations. Again, the community interest company is based on the idea of a bargain, and part 2 of the Bill creates the legislative basis for that balance. The people who run a community interest company will voluntarily accept certain constraints and a higher level of supervision and, in return, the company will acquire a status that signals to customers, investors, employees and bankers that the business is run for the benefit of the community, that its profits are wholly or largely applied for the benefit of the community, that its assets are protected for the benefit of the community and that it is subject to oversight from a regulator. The regulator will have the task of maintaining confidence in community interest companies and will also promote awareness of the potential of the new type of company.4 One of the main CIC-issues during the passage of the Bill was whether CICs should be allowed to have charitable status. During the committee stage of the Bill (especially in the Lords) there was debate over whether a CIC should be given the opportunity to become a charity. One argument was that there was no reason to deny charities what they would find most useful; charities already had a range of legal formats that they could adopt, another one would present no legal disadvantages; grant giving bodies find it easier to make grants to charities.
Recommended publications
  • Taming the Corporate Beast

    Taming the Corporate Beast

    This essay was submitted as part of TNI's call for papers for its State of Power 2015 report. The essay was not shortlisted for the final report and therefore TNI does not take responsibility for its contents. However the Editorial Board appreciated the essay and it is posted here as recommended reading. Taming the Corporate Beast An earlier version of this article was published by Dollars and Sense in its July and November 2014 issues. Marianne Hill, Ph.D. The litany of economic disasters in national headlines changes regularly, but a recurring theme is the role of transnational corporations (TNCs) in creating or exacerbating each new calamity. After the 2008 financial crisis, the near nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, the massive BP oil spill, and more, there is global awareness of the dire consequences of tolerating corporate misbehavior and greed. Despite their rhetoric, the priorities of TNCs are fundamentally at odds with the basic social goal of enhancing human freedoms and well-being. It can no longer be denied that the institutional framework regulating global giants requires a thorough transformation. Such a restructuring of our major institutions depends on the liberating knowledge that is being developed through the collective work of agents of change. In this article, I focus on efforts to bring structural changes to corporations that would bring new standpoints to corporate decision- making bodies and, in this way, change the values and control of corporates. I begin with a look at current soul-searching in the business community and efforts that have, at best, beautified the corporate beast.
  • Social Enterprises: Examining Accountability for Social and Financial Performance

    Social Enterprises: Examining Accountability for Social and Financial Performance

    SOCIAL ENTERPRISES: EXAMINING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Gloria Astrid Guraieb Izaguirre B.A. Financial Management Principal supervisor: Associate Professor Belinda Luke Associate supervisor: Dr Craig Furneaux Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business (Research) School of Accountancy QUT Business School Queensland University of Technology December 2015 Keywords Accountability, social enterprise, financial, social, performance, non-profit, third sector, Australia Social enterprises: Examining accountability for social and financial performance i Abstract This study explores the accountability of social enterprises with respect to their dual objectives of social and financial performance. During the last two decades, social enterprises have been subject to increasing public attention and research. This interest derives from the potential role of social enterprises to pursue a social mission through a self-funding commercial business model, rather than relying on philanthropy to survive. However, there is little research exploring how social enterprises exercise their accountability for both social and financial performance. Given that social enterprises seek to balance dual objectives, maintaining financial sustainability for long-term survival while also fulfilling their social mission, it is important to examine how these organisations balance accountability for these potentially conflicting goals. There is limited literature on social enterprise accountability, however, as third sector organisations, literature on accountability of non-profit organisations is a useful point of reference. In the context of non-profit organisations, concerns of mission drift and prioritising accountability to donors (as a main funding source) have been raised, where financial objectives may inadvertently override social objectives. Given the social and financial objectives of social enterprises, these issues are also relevant to their accountability.
  • 3 Models of Creating Social Impact Through Trading Activities

    3 Models of Creating Social Impact Through Trading Activities

    The 3 Models of Social Enterprise: Creating social impact through trading activities Introduction Within the emerging social investment market, the same words frequently mean different things to different people. In particular, the label “social enterprise” can be especially problematic. In part, this is because there is no shared understanding of the underlying business models beneath the “social enterprise” umbrella. For investors, as the number of organisations labelled as “social enterprises” proliferates, it is becoming increasingly urgent to agree, and then to adopt, a common methodology for disentangling the assessment of financial risk from the likelihood of an investment achieving social returns. Others have already written about ways in which social enterprises may be categorised and described1. We wish to contribute to this ongoing discussion by outlining Venturesome’s current thinking about this issue. This paper introduces a conceptual framework which we hope both investors and investees will find useful as a guide to thinking through how different business models create social impact - and the consequences of this for generating financial returns. The 3 Models Framework We believe that there are three fundamental ways that social impact2 can be created through trading activities: • Model 1 – Engage in a trading activity that has no direct social impact, make a profit, and then transfer some or all of that profit to another activity that does have direct social impact • Model 2 – Engage in a trading activity that does have direct social impact, but manage a trade-off between producing financial return and social impact • Model 3 – Engage in a trading activity that not only has direct social impact, but also generates a financial return in direct correlation to the social impact created It is important to note that these three models are statements of fact, not judgment.
  • Introduction to Social Enterprise & the Triple Bottom Line the Triple Bottom

    Introduction to Social Enterprise & the Triple Bottom Line the Triple Bottom

    Introduction to Social Enterprise & the Triple Bottom Line Drew Tulchin Managing Partner Social Enterprise Associates Webinar for Bankers without Borders Nov 30, 2012 About Social Enterprise Associates Consulting firm ‐ Registered ‘B Corp’ This network of experts offers consulting & capital raising to triple bottom line efforts ‐ for people, profits, planet. Registered ‘B Corporation’ , recognized: 2011 'One of the Best for the World‘ Small Businesses 2012 Honoree, Sustainable Business of the Year Drew Tulchin, Managing Partner, MBA • Former Program Officer, Grameen Foundation • Written >100 business/strategic plans; efforts raised >$100 million • Biz plan winner, Global Social Venture Comp; raised $1.2 mil. in social investment • Judge in international social enterprise & social business competitions Consulting Examples World Food Program: Investigated how to better engage private sector to raise $400 million. Wrote white paper on public‐private partnerships The SEEP Network: Worked with 5 int’l NGOs to develop business plans, hone products, enter new markets, & link to $ in the global North Future of Fish: Capital advisory for social entrepreneurs launching market‐based initiatives that drive sustainability, effic iency, and tbilittraceability in the seafdfood supply chihain. Plan International: Contributed to national studies in W. Africa on economic sector growth opportunities for young adults. Identified growth markets for 50,000 jobs in 3 years SW Native Green Loan Fund: Structured fund to involve small fdifoundations in public‐private
  • Activist Social Entrepreneurship: a Case Study of the Green Campus Co-Operative

    Activist Social Entrepreneurship: a Case Study of the Green Campus Co-Operative

    Activist Social Entrepreneurship: A Case Study of the Green Campus Co-operative By: Madison Hopper Supervised By: Rod MacRae A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 31 July 2018 1 Table of Contents ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 4 FOREWORD........................................................................................................................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION: WHO’S TO BLAME?.......................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 12 SOCIAL ENTERPRISES ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Hybrid Business Models ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Mission Quality - TOMS shoes ..........................................................................................................................
  • Enterprise Collaboration & Social Software

    Enterprise Collaboration & Social Software

    Enterprise Collaboration & Social Software June 2013 INDUSTRY REPORT INSIDE THIS ISSUE Enterprise Collaboration & Social Software 1. Introduction INTRODUCTION 2. Market Trends This report focuses on technologies for collaboration and socialization within the enterprise. A number of forces are currently playing out in the enterprise IT 3. Competitive Landscape environment that are creating an inflection in the adoption and deployment of social and collaboration technologies. This significant uptrend has provided strong 4. M&A Activity growth for the sector and is driving a substantial amount of M&A and investment activity. This report includes a review of the recent M&A and private investing 5. Private Financings activities in enterprise social and collaboration software, particularly within the areas of group collaboration & workspaces, private social platforms, project and 6. Valution Trends social task management, event scheduling, web collaboration, white boarding & diagramming, and other related technologies. We have also profiled about 50 emerging private players in these subcategories to provide an overview of the 7. Emerging Private Companies breadth and diversity of the players targeting this sector. OVERVIEW Socialization and collaboration technologies are currently reshaping the established enterprise collaboration market as well as creating whole new categories of offerings, especially around private social platforms. In addition, many other enterprise applications such as CRM and unified communications are heavily transformed through the incorporation of new technologies including group messaging & activity feeds, document collaboration, and analytics. Much of this change is being driven by the consumerization of IT and the incorporation of social technologies. As businesses look to leverage the benefits of improved “connecting” and “network building” that employees have experienced with Facebook and other social solutions, a convergence is occurring between the enterprise social software and collaboration markets.
  • The Implementation of Social Capital Features in Social Auditing Procedures to Secure Community Accountability of Social Enterprises in the Third Sector

    The Implementation of Social Capital Features in Social Auditing Procedures to Secure Community Accountability of Social Enterprises in the Third Sector

    Günther Lorenz The Implementation of Social Capital Features in Social Auditing Procedures to secure Community Accountability of Social Enterprises in the Third Sector 1. The CONSCISE Project These findings were developed within a three year's research project entitled CONSCISE1. Research partners from England, Scotland, Germany, Sweden and Spain worked together to examine the way in which social enterprises in the social economy contribute to the growth of social capital and facilitate local development in their locality. The project was divided into 8 inter-related workpackages. The aim of the first workpackage was to providing working definitions and measures of the key concepts: • Social Enterprise • Social Economy • Social Capital These definitions and measures were then utilised in augmented local socio-economic profiling and social auditing techniques. Social Capital Objectives Early in the process Social capital objectives were introduced and added to the Framework The social capital objectives and activities were: - to use social capital in sustaining social enterprise by….. · having formal and informal links with other social economy organisations · having formal and informal links with other organisations and institutions · developing and using contacts with key decision-makers · having a strong local support network and: - to create and generate social capital for the benefit of the local community by…. · promoting social enterprise · facilitating the development of other social enterprises · supporting initiatives of community benefit · encouraging other organisations to be active in the area Activity Information required Method of collecting it Objective 1: To……by…. 1 The CONSCISE Project was a three-year action research project (2000 - 2003) funded by the EU with fieldwork at eight locations in four European countries.
  • What Makes a Social Enterprise?

    What Makes a Social Enterprise?

    What makes a social enterprise? Social enterprises generally provide a social or environmental good, based on a sustainable business which does not have to rely on charity or philanthropy for its on-going sustainability. The intention is generally to trade in order to make a surplus. Social entrepreneurs have to consider how a legal structure can encapsulate, protect and maximise the social mission and ensure the assets of the business are predominantly applied for the social good. But they often need to receive a salary and finance the start-up of the new business. There are a number of legal structures that can be used to run a social enterprise including charitable structures. This article explores some of the issues and options that are available. Charitable organisations One of the most common structures is the company limited by guarantee with charitable status. A charitable incorporated organisation is another option – like the company, it offers the benefit of limited liability and charitable status. There are significant tax advantages that come with charitable status including an exemption from corporation tax on profits and stamp duty, gift aid and rates relief. A charity can trade and can be (and many are) successful social enterprises but only where that trade fulfils the charity’s mission. Social mission Charities can only have objects and undertake activities that are exclusively charitable and for the public benefit. Consent from the Charity Commission is required to change the objects. This ensures that the mission and assets are protected and cannot be applied for private gain. Payment and private benefit A social entrepreneur often needs to be paid.
  • CODE of CONDUCT of SOCIAL ENTERPRISES Common Views

    CODE of CONDUCT of SOCIAL ENTERPRISES Common Views

    CODE OF CONDUCT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES With regard to the Declaration of the Social Entrepreneurship Forum of 2014, With regard to the Declaration of the Social Entrepreneurship Forum of 2015, the Annexes thereto and in particular the Framework Agreement of Principles and Values which determines our Common Principles, Values and Views, With regard to the strategy of Rome 2014, for Social Economy With regard to the definitions of the European Commission and of the EMES research network for social enterprises, With regard to the national legislation regarding social economy and social entrepreneurship, With regard to the European experience in the area of the social economy and social entrepreneurship and the pilot projects in the area of social financing and social innovation, With regard to the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee on social economy and social entrepreneurship and its development tools, With regard to the experience so far as well as the positions of the collective members of the community of social economy, With regard to the 7 basic principles of the world cooperative movement, Whereas: The social, economic and environmental situation that has developed in the country especially in recent years, the sophistication and complexity of the problems that have arisen The networking organisations and social enterprises for the exchange of know-how The disposition of many social enterprises and enterprises and social economy actors to cooperate jointly for a new development model The need for an ethical framework of partnerships and entrepreneurship within and beyond Greece with a view to activating venture reflective The Code of Conduct is the most important document in cooperation between us that summarises the principles, values and our vision of a more equitable and democratic society.
  • Csr Statements: Incentives and Enforcement in the Wake of the Business Roundtable’S Statement on Corporate Purpose

    Csr Statements: Incentives and Enforcement in the Wake of the Business Roundtable’S Statement on Corporate Purpose

    CSR STATEMENTS: INCENTIVES AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE WAKE OF THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE’S STATEMENT ON CORPORATE PURPOSE Arielle Sigel* ABSTRACT Corporate social responsibility (“CSR”) statements—voluntary statements made by a corporation to improve its practices in three broad areas: environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”)—are increasingly expected from companies. Both consumers and investors are interested in whether companies are making efforts at social responsibility. In 2019, the Business Roundtable’s statement focused on CSR, emphasizing corporations’ commitment to stakeholders as well as shareholders. This statement signaled a broader shift away from for-profit companies’ profitability focus, and other prominent industry figures, such as BlackRock’s Larry Fink, continue to voice similar sentiments. The business judgment rule and related corporate law doctrines and cases, such as Dodge v. Ford, provide directors with a great deal of deference—within limits, of course—to make decisions that do not fulfill their primary duty of profit maximization. While CSR statements help companies by providing brand recognition, meeting consumer demand, and creating social good, these companies’ decisions to pursue CSR goals do not always align directly with maximizing profits. This creates a rift between directors’ and companies’ legal obligations and the trend of CSR and stakeholder theory. This Note seeks to close this rift by exploring the incentives behind CSR statements and explaining how directors can fulfill their duties by linking CSR statements to profits. In doing so, it concludes that CSR is a proper corporate purpose. CSR statements, with certain conditions placed on them, benefit both companies and society. If companies get to reap the reputational and financial benefits from making CSR statements, then companies must make good faith efforts to achieve their stated goals.
  • Which Legal Structure Is Right for My Social Enterprise? a Guide to Establishing a Social Enterprise in the United States

    Which Legal Structure Is Right for My Social Enterprise? a Guide to Establishing a Social Enterprise in the United States

    WHICH LEGAL STRUCTURE IS RIGHT FOR MY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE? A GUIDE TO ESTABLISHING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN THE UNITED STATES REUTERS / KEVIN LAMARQUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Thomson Reuters Foundation is immensely grateful to Morrison & Foerster LLP for their dedication and the extensive resources they have provided in making this Guide possible. Their commitment to the social enterprise sector has paved the way in both the UK and the US for new ways of thinking in relation to how traditional corporate forms can be used or adapted to accommodate businesses that want to achieve social and environmental goals, in addition to the traditional maximization of profits. In particular, we would like to thank: SUSAN MAC CORMAC Partner SHANE SHELLEY Partner LINDA ARNSBARGER Of Counsel LISA ABBOT Associate JESSE FINFROCK Associate BENJAMIN FOX Associate KRISTIN HIENSCH Associate YING HUANG Associate JAMES KRENN Associate TEMIDAYO ODUSOLU Associate INGRID PFISTER Associate CLAIRE REILLY Associate ANA VINUEZA Summer Associate JEANNETTE FILIPPONE Former Associate SIMON MONT UC Berkeley School of Law, Class of 2016 We would also like to thank everyone else at Morrison & Foerster LLP who helped in the preparation of this Guide as well as the clients and entities who kindly agreed to participate as case studies. WHICH LEGAL STRUCTURE IS RIGHT FOR MY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE? A GUIDE TO ESTABLISHING A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN THE UNITED STATES DISCLAIMER Thomson Reuters Foundation and Morrison & Foerster LLP have created this Guide purely to inform and to assist its readers in learning more about registered social enterprises in the United States. However, Thomson Reuters Foundation and Morrison & Foerster LLP neither verify the accuracy of, nor assume liability for, the information within the Guide.
  • Goodguide: the Triple Bottom Line – Measure & Improve Your Brand’S Social Impact

    Goodguide: the Triple Bottom Line – Measure & Improve Your Brand’S Social Impact

    GoodGuide Triple Bottom Line: Measure & Improve Your Brand’s Social Impact www.goodcarts.co GoodGuide: The Triple Bottom Line – Measure & Improve Your Brand’s Social Impact People, planet, profit — how does your brand measure up across the board? Introduction As the founder of any retail business will tell you, success comes down to that all-important bottom line. But when you’re a social enterprise with aspirations that go beyond simply turning a profit, your goals are far more nuanced. Enter “the triple bottom line”. What is the triple bottom line? Simply put, it’s your brand paying close attention to the impact it’s making at three crucial levels: ● People ● Planet ● Profit Retailers in the ethical commerce space are aiming higher and achieving more. As a result, there’s more to measure. We must hold ourselves accountable to all three areas if our businesses are going to thrive and make a tangible impact, leaving the world a better place than we found it. Why is it important to keep track of progress across this triple bottom line? The world needs more brands doing good, and people are waking up to this fact. There’s a huge rise in demand for impact-led brands, and as ecommerce booms, there’s a real need for more ethical, environmentally responsible online retailers. It also makes good business sense. As a result of the pandemic, the ecommerce industry has accelerated forward by an estimated five years. Customers’ expectations have also shifted — today there’s increasingly strong interest in supporting brands that align with personal values.